Contempt case at the Lebanon Tribunal: The defence case

The Amicus Prosecutor finished the presentation of its case end of April 2015 (see our blog post). Between 12 and 14 May, the defence for Ms. Karma Al Khayat and Al Jadeed S.A.L. presented its case to the Court.

Ms. Rana Al Sabbagh: Executive Director of Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism

On 12 May, the defence called its first witness, Ms. Rana Al Sabbagh; she is the executive director of Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism, which organisation promotes the culture of media excellence and accountability journalism in nine Arab countries, including Lebanon. The organisation teaches journalists how to investigate a story and how to identify open and closed sources.

This witness followed the work of Al Jadeed, mainly about corruption they were reporting on. Around August 2010, the witness contacted Ms. Khayat and asked her if she could come and share her experience with them. Whilst Ms. Khayat had other commitments, Mr. Dsouki and Mr. Dimitri attended the training instead of the accused on behalf of Al Jadeed. In 2011, the witness invited Ms. Khayat again, as well as three other journalists, to attend their annual journalism training.

The witness explained the details of the training, including what journalists are allowed to do and what is not legal. They also train journalists on legal and ethical issues. In responding to questions by counsel for the defence, the witness said that working undercover and employing hidden cameras is not the rule, but that it can be justified in exceptional circumstances as a way of showing to the public that criminal acts are being conducted. In such situations, the faces of the culprits should be blurred.

The Amicus Prosecutor then cross-examined this witness, first asking her about the relationship between the witness and the accused. The witness responded that the last time they met was before Christmas of last year, in professional circumstances; she added that the two are not friends and are not socially connected. Ms. Sabbagh indicated that there are three basic rules that apply to investigative journalism: 1. You never lie; 2. You never tell the whole truth, and 3. You don't have to say why you are here. Additionally, when there are extremely important public objectives at stake, it may be justified to violate the law. It is the duty of journalists to expose miscarriages of justice and injustices, not because they want to cause a scandal, but to protect society. 

Mr. Abdel Hadi Mahfouz: Head of Lebanon's National Audiovisual Media Council

The subsequent day, 13 May, saw Mr. Mahfouz testify on behalf of the defendant. Since 2003 Mr. Mahfouz has ben the President of Lebanon's National Audiovisual Media Council (NAMC). The NAMC is qualified to certify and authorise the establishment of audiovisual media outlets. The NAMC has no preventive control, only after publication or broadcast can it determine whether the behaviour of a media outlet violated any applicable media legislation. They have a gradual scale of possible sanctions they can apply: warning letters, stopping the program or television station for three days, withdrawal of the license. The NAMC is not (yet) entitled to impose a financial sanction.

[Screenshot of Mr. Abdel Hadi Mahfouz.]

After the assassination that is subject to the main investigation in the Ayyash et al. case at this Tribunal, the STL contacted the NAMC with a request to hand over all relevant information surrounding this event. NAMC contacted all audiovisual media houses to send this footage directly to the Prosecutor's office of the STL. The witness noted that all the media houses, including Al Jadeed TV, responded positively to this request. The defence noted during its examination that quite a lot of footage that the Prosecution uses in the main case derives from Al Jadeed TV. Whilst not explicitly said in court, the defence wanted to make clear to the Court that Al Jadeed has been cooperative to the STL, thus attacking the Prosecution theory that the defendants wanted to undermine the integrity of the Tribunal. 

In relation to the request to Al Jadeed to stop broadcasting the interview they had conducted with confidential witnesses, the NAMC received a letter from Prime Minister Tammam Salam to take all necessary measures against Al Jadeed. On 8 August 2012, a meeting was arranged between the witness and representatives of Al Jadeed, namely the Director of TV News Ms. Mariam Al-Nassam and Al Jadeed's lawyer Ms. Maya Habli. The meeting was conducted at the witness's office in the NAMC building. After the meeting, the witness sent a letter to Prime Minister Tammam Salam, stating that he "did not find that Al-Jadeed violated any provision of media laws and that the broadcast wasn't in violation with the principles of the NAMC". He further tells the Court that the NAMC did not receive any complaints from the public or specific witnesses about the broadcast. He moreover added that "Al-Jadeed had no criminal intent when they were doing their work". 

On 21 March 2014, the NAMC received a letter from the STL Registrar, containing various decisions of the Tribunal's Pre-Trial Judge, requesting to send this information on to the relevant media houses. Mr. Mahfouz criticised the way in which the Tribunal had failed to communicate about the transmission of confidential information prior to this period of time. He states it was the role of the NAMC to instruct the media houses about the way the Tribunal wanted to handle confidential information. In his opinion, the Tribunal should have done so prior to March 2014. 

During an extended cross-examination, Amicus Prosecutor Kenneth Scott was repeatedly accused by defence counsel and the witness of manipulating the latter's statements, whilst Mr. Scott became increasingly frustrated by the witness's digressive answers to his questions. The witness did not himself watch the broadcasts, and he did not verify his opinion about the broadcasts with anyone. He did not have information that some of the witnesses were interviewed under false pretences. If he had had that sort of information, he states, he probably would have handled the situation differently and would have had to intervene. He is still of the opinion that those behind the broadcast did not have criminal intent, but they had the intention to discover false witnesses. 

Mr. Charbel Bou Samra: Judge and Public Prosecutor at the Lebanese Court of Cassation

Mr. Charbel Antoine Bou Samra appeared in court in the afternoon of 13 May 2015, to provide a short testimony about a meeting he had held with Ms. Mariam El-Bassam, the Head of TV News at Al-Jadeed and her lawyer, Ms. Maya Habli, both mentioned in the previous witness's testimony.

In response to questions by counsel Rodney Dixon for the defence, Mr. Bou Samra testified about an alleged forgery complaint filed by Ms. Marian El-Bassam before the Court of Cassation against an unknown person. That file had been referred by the public prosecutor to the witness on 8 October 2013. The witness found out that the alleged forgery concerned documents of the STL. The witness asked Mr. Ziad Eid and Mr. Akram Rahal, two officers in charge of servicing STL documents, to come to his office. He asked them whether Ms. El-Bassam had signed the report in their presence, which they indeed confirmed. During a later meeting, Ms. El-Bassam said that she was told that she was claiming that there was a forged signature on a report served on behalf of the STL, pertaining to a crime of contempt of court, but that she herself did not have a copy that document. She said during that meeting that she had never perpetrated any act of contempt against the STL and that there was no justification for any order to be served on her. During this meeting, Mr. Bou Samra showed her the document in question, and she immediately recognised her own signature. She apologised and asked to withdraw the lawsuit. She was confused about the issue. 

On 14th May, the defence requested the Court to show a five minute video already forming part of the Prosecution evidence, dealing with the 10 August Order by the Contempt Judge. The video shows an interview with Ms. Khayat along with Al-Jadeed's legal counsel Ms. Maya Habli. Counsel Karim Khan for the defence alleged that this video shows when Ms. Khayat and Ms. Habli for the first time were confronted with the Contempt Judge's Order to stop the broadcast, and defence counsel argued it show that their confusion is not contrived, not feigned. 

Mr. Afif Chouaib: Head of the Lebanese Inspection and Investigation Bureau at the Directorate General of the Civil Defence

[Screenshot of Mr. Afif Chouaib.]

This witness testified through video link from the STL Beirut Office. Since August 2011, this witness has been the Head of the Inspection and Investigation Bureau at the Directorate General of the Civil Defence. The third counsel for the defence, Ms. Shyamala Alagendra, examined this witness in chief. This witness was summoned by STL investigators to give evidence, and this evidence was leaked at some point. The witness tells that the Directorate General knew the summons before he himself had any knowledge of them. The witness's complaints about confidentiality issues at the STL predates the Al-Jadeed broadcasts. 

In 2012 the witness was in his office when Mr. Firas Hatoum and another person entered his office. They carried a camera on their shoulder, but the witness informed them that he could not allow them to record an interview, because the law did not entitle him to do so without prior authorisation from the civil defence or his boss. Mr. Hatoum then told the witness that he only needed two minutes of his time, and the witness told them they could enter, but without the camera. Later on he found out they had been carrying a hidden camera. The men informed the witness that they had information that the witness had been contacted by the Tribunal. After the interview had been broadcast, the witness was approached by people from the STL. The witness blames the STL for having leaked information. When summoned, the witness was told no one would ever know of the meetings between him and the STL staff, but this turned out not to be true. The witness endured mainly psychological and emotional consequences. Many people in Lebanon viewed him as a false witness for the STL.

In cross-examination, counsel Mr. Slobodan Zecevic for the Prosecution, attempted to bring out that it was more the Lebanese press that were responsible for the (alleged) leaks that had occurred, but this witness disagreed and maintained that the Tribunal was to be blamed for this, adding: "I repeat and I repeat - and I will repeat tomorrow and every day, the fault and the blame falls on those who leaked the information from inside the Tribunal, nothing more than that".

Conclusion

This witness was the last witness called by the defence, and thus brought an end to the defence case. The defence has done a proper job in arguing that there had been no criminal intent on the defendants' mind when broadcasting the interviews, though it will be interesting to hear the parties' final arguments and read their final briefs to see how they will interpret the evidence provided in court. Unfortunately, much of the evidence in the prosecution's case was withheld from the public, and we, as well as the wider public, will thus not be in a position to scrutinise this part of the trial. 

Contempt Judge Lettieri instructed the parties to file their final briefs by 8 June; closing arguments will take place on 18 and 19 June. 

Witness Majdalani testifies

Between 28 April and 1 May, witness Dr. Atef Majdalani appeared in court as a witness for the prosecution. This witness, member of Rafik Hariri's Future Bloc, is a neurologist who entered Lebanese politics in 1996, and currently functions as a member of parliament.

[Screenshot of Dr. Majdalani.]

The witness testified about his relationship to Rafik Hariri, they were friends and political allies, and met each other almost on a daily basis. They created a political group that was to become the Al-Mustaqbal movement. The witness believed the Syrians had kept Hariri from forming his own political party and his own electoral list.

The Syrians wanted to limit Hariri's influence to Beirut. The witness also testifies about the Syrians arming Hezbollah so as to reduce the power of the Lebanese army and strengthen Hezbollah. When counsel for the Prosecution asked the witness about the relations between Syria and Hezbollah, counsel for Baddreddine objected to this line of questioning, indicating to the judges that this went beyond the scope of this witness's witness statement, however, the Chamber ruled against the objection, allowing the witness to testify on this matter.

Syrian troops were deployed all over Lebanon until 2005, and Hezbollah had a heavy military presence in the South of Lebanon. There was cooperation between Syria and Hezbollah in the south of the country. There were clear Syrian orders preventing the Lebanese army from being deployed in South Lebanon. President Emile Lahoud was very proud that he left the whole situation in South Lebanon up to the Hezbollah militia and the Syrian army.

The witness testified about the problems between Hariri and Emile Lahoud concerning the latter's reelection as president. Majdalani himself was also opposed to Lahoud's reelection. He even publicly announced his opposition to Lahoud's candidacy, though emphasised that this was his personal opinion, and not the bloc's. He felt threatened by Syria, though, after he had taken this position. He was afraid of the future of Lebanon and for Hariri's security. The witness states he would endorse the position of Prime Minister Hariri because he was a member of the Future Movement, one of the MPs in that bloc, and all MPs in that bloc used to endorse the position of Hariri whenever it came to critical issues and matters regarding Lebanon's future. Prime Minister Hariri had declared publicly that in the forthcoming parliamentary elections he would not be taking on board any pro-Syrian candidates.  

Hariri's security had been reduced, and this was also discussed by the witness during his testimony in court. Whilst Hariri had been Prime Minister, he had had 20 to 30 security officers, but this was reduced to only six or seven officers after his term in office had come to an end. 

On 13 February, the day prior to his assassination, Hariri and Majdalani discussed the strategy for the upcoming elections. Hariri had been convinced that an alliance needed to be formed to establish a free and democratic Lebanon. He had not mentioned that Hezbollah was an issue in that. 

On 14 February, the day of the assassination, Abou-Tareq, Hariri's head of security, had looked very concerned and angry, and it had been obvious to the witness that he was afraid and worried about something. Normally, Abou-Tareq had been a very loveable and alive person, but on that day his face was glum, and the witness knew he had just returned from a visit to Rustom Ghazaleh, the head of Syrian security in Lebanon. It was obvious that Abou-Tareq had received a very negative message from Rustom Ghazaleh.

Hariri had high hopes for winning the parliamentary elections in May of that year, and the witness states the Syrians knew this, "and I think also that this might have been one of the reasons that led to his assassination". It was obvious that through the Bristol gathering, there was a rapprochement between Hariri, His Eminence Patriarch Boutros Sfeir and the various Christian factions. Thus, the Syrians were afraid that Hariri et al would get a majority in parliament and would ask for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. "This rapprochement would have saved Lebanon, unified all the Lebanese around one goal, and would have helped Lebanon to achieve its full sovereignty, independence, and freedom", declares Dr. Majdalani.

One interesting part of this witness's testimony that will probably not be pursued by the Prosecution is that the witness recalled having recognised Abu Adass, or a person looking like him, whilst visiting a prison at the end of 2004. Abu Adass was the person who, according to the Prosecution case, claimed responsibility for the assassination of Rafik Hariri in a video that was spread through the media. However, the Prosecution denies that this could have been the case.

Testimony of Dr Youssef: More background evidence on political events preceding the attack

This witness’ evidence is part of the first section of the second part of the Prosecutions’ case, which according to the Prosecution will show that this case is about a political assassination. The political background evidence is covering five themes: (i) the prime minister' s deteriorating relationship with Syria as a consequence of his goal to strengthen Lebanese autonomy; (ii) Syria's increasing resolve to exert control beyond mere influence over Lebanon internal affairs; (iii) the growing concerns voiced by the international community regarding external pressures bearing upon the political affairs of Lebanon; (iv) the evolution of an effective opposition movement in September 2004 in Lebanon of which Rafik Hariri was first a silent and then a more public participant; and (v) the prime minister' s status as an influential statesman in the Gulf region and beyond (see the transcript of 11 November 2014 for this explanation by the Prosecution of the contents of the political background evidence).

Background of Dr Youssef and his relationship with Hariri

Dr Ghazi El-Youssef (testimony of 10-12 and 20 March) has a background as an economist and is presently a Member of the Lebanese Parliament. He worked with former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and as an advisor to the Minister of Finance Fouad Siniora, another Prosecution witness who has already testified. Dr Youssef continued to work as Hariri’s economic advisor in the years until Hariri’s assassination, working on privatisation and other economic projects. After the elections of 2000 Dr Youssef worked at the seat of the government and he was in charge of economic matters. Hariri and Dr Youssef met almost on a daily basis to discuss various issues, including economic issues in Lebanon, the electoral strategy and Hariri’s relationship with Syria. They discussed many times the obstacles hindering the economic development of Lebanon; according to the witness Hariri was a liberal in his vision for the economic future of Lebanon. An example of these obstacles were the blocking of energy and transport projects because of political interference and corruption.

[Dr Youssef testifying at the STL]

Syrian influence on electoral issues in Lebanon

For the elections of 2000 Dr Youssef was asked to be on the electoral list for Hariri, but Ghazi Kanaan did not want him on the list and Dr Youssef withdrew his candidacy. The Syrian regime was controlling electoral lists, and was imposing candidates in certain areas. Further, the electoral law was drafted by the Syrian regime, dividing the constituencies in away that would prevent Hariri from getting the majority in all different constituencies; this was known as the Ghazi Khanaan law. Hariri also faced opposition from Members of Parliament that were imposed on him by the Syrian regime. Further, the witness talks extensively about the political difficulties Hariri was facing, the imposition of a new cabinet on Hariri in 2003 by Rustom Ghazaleh and President Lahoud - which further reduced the political role of Hariri - , and the threats Hariri received from Damascus to change his position in relation to the extension of the mandate of President Lahoud. After President Lahoud’s term was extended for three years in 2004, Hariri decided not to form a new government as demanded by the Syrian regime. Upon Hariri’s resignation, Dr Youssef also resigned. The witness provides further details about the political ambitions of Hariri, and Hariri’s chances if he were to run for the 2005 elections. Dr Youssef thinks that the main reason for Hariri’s assassination is that he would have been very successful in the elections of 2005.

The witness also provides evidence that in December 2004 Mr. Ghassan Salameh, a former minister and adviser to the UN Secretary-General, warned Hariri that “the Syrians want his political assassination or otherwise." And he also told Hariri that “If you are going back to Lebanon to resist, to avoid political assassination, not to allow them to impose their candidates, then they will kill you." But Hariri went back to Beirut. The day of the assassination a meeting was planned in Parliament in order to discuss a draft electoral law.

Hariri's relationship with Hezbollah

The witness testifies about meetings between Hariri and Said Hassan Nasrallah, the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, meetings that became more frequent after the attempted assassination of Marwan Hamade. About these meetings Hariri told the witness “what's more important than keeping your friends close to you, you have to keep your enemies closer.” According to Dr Youssef, Hariri wanted to include Hezbollah in his vision for Lebanon. However, during cross-examination the witness admits that Hariri told him that "his meetings with Hezbollah and with Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah were not6 progressing the way he wanted them to, for the sake of Lebanon and for the sake of running for elections and for the sake of giving the Lebanese back their decision."

Dr Youssef further confirms the close relationship between Hezbollah and Syria, the presence of the Syrian intelligence network everywhere in Lebanon, and the close cooperation between the Syrian intelligence and the Hezbollah security apparatus. The Prosecution will however not rely on this part of Dr Youssef’s evidence which according to the witness was “an analysis based upon my personal opinion, not based on facts, it was the reality as I describe it as we lived over the past years."

Taped conversation between Hariri, Ghazaleh and Charles Ayoub

A large part of the testimony of Dr Youssef deals with a recording of a conversation between Hariri, Rustom Ghazaleh (Director-General of the Syrina military intelligence in Lebanon), and Charles Ayoub (editor of Ad-Diyar newspaper and close to the Syrian regime). According to the Prosecution, the meeting occurred on 9 January 2005 at Hariri’s residence and office in Quraitem Palace in Beirut and was secretly recorded by Hariri’s chief of security, the late Mr Wissam El-Hassan, who provided the tapes to UNIIIC.

According to the witness, Mr Ayoub was present as an intermediary, to re-establish the confidence between Hariri and the Syrian regime. The witness identifies the voices of the men on the tape, and various excerpts of the tape are played, with Hariri and Ghazaleh talking about the relationship between Lebanon and Syria, the reform of the electoral law in Lebanon, and the government appointments. Hariri is stating that he’s “completely convinced that Lebanon cannot be ruled without Syria’s consent or Syria's will. Now perhaps the Lebanese should have a bigger role in ruling their country, et cetera, this is an issue that I believe Syria is also not against it. Any flaws in the relationship can be discussed quietly and amicably.” Dr Youssef gives his interpretation of what's being said, and according to him Hariri tries to tell the Syrians that there should be co-ordination, but that the Lebanese should play a more important role in governing their own country. According to the witness Hariri’s plan was to stop the interference of the Syrians in Lebanese affairs. Hariri was using diplomacy to promote for an electoral law based on the Taif agreement and wanted to become prime minister after the elections.

The Defence objected to Dr Youssef giving opinion evidence as to what was said on this tape recording. However, the Trial Chamber found that although Dr Youssef is not treated as an expert witness, he is a “contemporary political insider whose interpretation or opinion of what was being discussed could assist the Trial Chamber to evaluate the evidence”. The Trial Chamber also seemed very interested in Dr Youssef’s interpretation of the recording, as many questions were asked, and the witness provided a lot of details about the Lebanese political landscape at that time and the exact interpretation of what is said at the tape recording, of which the relevance for the criminal case still remains to be seen.

Evidence on communication equipment

In addition, on 13 March the Prosecution deals with the tendering into evidence of a number of documents that are claimed to show that the purchasers of the phones and SIM cards (that were used to communicate between the alleged perpetrators of the assassination of Hariri) were concealing the identities of the users by using false identities or the identities of other persons who were unaware of this (several of these persons gave statements to the Prosecution).

We would like to thank our intern Sivan Serbest for her valuable contribution to this blog.

Contempt case at the Lebanon Tribunal: The Prosecution case

On 16 April, the Prosecution started the presentation of its evidence in the first contempt case against Al Jadeed S.A.L. and Ms Karma Al Khayat (see our blog post on the Prosecution and Defence opening statements that day). That same day, the Prosecution called its first witness, Mr. Comeau.

Witness Mr. John Comeau

Mr. John Comeau is a former STL staff member who was tasked with having direct contact with Prosecution witnesses about, among others, security concerns. He was the person that contacted the witnesses after the Prosecution became aware of the broadcasts by Al Jadeed. Only shortly after Mr Comeau's testimony started however, the court went into private session. Although this still remains to be seen, it seems likely that a large part of the evidence in the contempt case will not be available to the public. Some of the main evidentiary questions may therefore remain unanswered for the larger public, for example to what extent Al Jadeed in fact did or did not reveal the identity of (purported) protected witnesses, a matter that has been left unclear in the Prosecution’s submissions so far (or at least in the submissions that have been made available to the public), but which is probably one of the key issues in this case. This is very unfortunate, especially since this case has drawn so much attention and public debate within Lebanese society. 

Karim Khan, QC, counsel for Ms. Al Khayat and Al Jadeed TV, cross-examined this witness the subsequent day, 17 April. During cross-examination, the witness was presented with an article from the German newspaper Der Spiegel published in 2009, which revealed confidential information about the case at the time. The Prosecutor amicus Mr. Kenneth Scott objected to this line of questioning, indicating that it would be irrelevant and that the court ruled previously in decisions on pre-trial motions that the selective prosecution and the fact that other people should have been prosecuted, is not a defence. However, Judge Lettieri ruled that the line of questioning could be relevant to the defence strategy, and dismissed the Prosecution objection. In responding to questions by Mr. Khan, the witness said he was not aware of any action undertaken by the STL in response to this information.

The witness was shown several other newspaper articles that disclosed confidential information. The defence seems to want to prove that the idea behind initiating this case was to silence the press in Lebanon, and more specifically Al Khayat and her media corporation Al Jadeed. That the Prosecution could have initiated contempt cases in similar cases, but decided not to. An interesting strategy, and it remains to be seen whether the information contained in the various instances was indeed of a similar nature, in which case the defence may have a point, or whether the information disclosed in this particular case was of a different nature, and thus indeed warranted prosecution.

The witness agreed to a statement by defence counsel that no names were in fact given in the broadcast, and that the faces of the witnesses were pixelated to some degree. The witness vaguely remembered another broadcast by Al Jadeed, of beginning of 2011, containing interviews between Mr. Saad Hariri and a Prosecution investigator. Counsel stated that Al Jadeed had identified its interest in reporting on the Tribunal back then. The witness did not recall whether the Prosecution threatened Al Jadeed with prosecution at that time. The following part was in private session.

Witness Ms. Veronique Bernard

Ms. Bernard is currently Field Safety Adviser for UNHCR in the Congo; prior to that, she was Head of Field Security at the STL in the Beirut Office, between approximately February 2012 and May 2013. Ms. Bernard was asked by Mr. Lodge, who will be called as a witness in this trial on 20 April, to give several documents to a television station; the witness could not recall the name of the station. She was requested to personally deliver four envelopes to a manager in the TV station. According to Ms. Bernard, these letters had a connection with the disclosure of certain witness names to the TV station. The witness handed the four envelopes to Mr. Dsouki, a manager at the TV station. 

The witness knew vaguely about the content of the envelopes, about which Mr. Lodge had briefed her. It contained information for the TV station that it could not disclose or broadcast. In August 2012, Mr. Lodge called the witness again that she had to deliver another three letters to deliver to the TV station, which she did. She was told to do things 'low key' and not make an official appointment, first because it was late at night, and secondly because it was a rather sensitive area.

This witness was cross-examined by co-counsel for the defence, Mr. Rodney Dixon. The witness explained that she was merely a postman, only doing what she was told to do by Mr. Lodge. Mr. Dixon tried to discredit this witness's evidence by questioning the manner in which she delivered the envelopes and to whom she did that. 

Witness Mr. Akram Rahal

The third witness called by the amicus Prosecutor was Mr. Akram Rahal, a Chief Warrant Officer with the Judicial Police Service in Lebanon. On 14 August 2012 he was assigned by the head of the section to a mission upon the request of the Prosecutor General to serve Ms. Mariam El-Bassam with several documents. Ms. El-Bassam is the head of the news section of Al Jadeed TV. After receiving this assignment, the witness called Ms. El-Bassam for an appointment to deliver these documents. Mr. Rahal delivered several documents to Ms. El-Basam in the Al Jadeed building, together with his colleague Mr. Ziad Eid, a chief warrant officer. After delivery of those documents, they signed a receipt, showing that they served her the papers, and she signed the receipt.

This witness was also cross-examined by defence counsel Mr. Dixon, who questioned Mr. Rahal about the receipt and whether a copy thereof was provided to Ms. El-Bassam, which was not the case.

Witness Mr. Anthony Lodge

On 20th April, Mr. Lodge testified in the contempt case. Mr. Lodge has been Head of the STL Beirut Office since June 2010, and the testimony evolved mainly around an Order of the then-Pre Trial Judge Daniel Fransen of 10 August 2012. That Order directed Al Jadeed TV, its employees, agents and affiliates not to disseminate any confidential information relating to the Tribunal and its purported witnesses. Al Jadeed began broadcasting televised reports on 6 August 2012, and in spite of a notice (Notice of Cease and Desist for Al Jadeed TV) sent electronically by the Registrar to Al Jadeed on 7 August 2012, Al Jadeed continued its broadcasts on 7, 8 and 9 August. Whilst the faces of the witnesses were slightly obscured, the Prosecution is of the opinion that the faces of the witnesses remained recognisable. The Notice was sent electronically, but also an attempt was made to hand deliver by a senior security officer of the STL Beirut office to Mr. Ibrahim Dsouki of Al Jadeed TV; however, he failed to do so. On 10 August 2012, the Order by the Pre-Trial Judge was delivered to Al Jadeed, both physically and electronically to Ms Khayat, who was in France at the time. The witness never received confirmation of receipt of his email. The physical delivery the subsequent day, 11 August, was not successful either. On 14 August, the documents were served on Al Jadeed by the Lebanese authorities. In response to questions from the defence of Ms Khayat, the witness had to confirm that there is no document that proves that the Order was served on Ms Khayat on 10 August 2012. The remainder of this witness's testimony was held in private session.

Other witnesses testified in private session

Various other witnesses testified in private session, including witnesses AP11, AP12 and AP13.

Witness Dr. Anne-Marie de Brouwer

The last witness to testify on behalf of the Prosecution was expert witness Dr. De Brouwer, Associate Professor of Criminal Law at Tilburg University, and research fellow with the International Victimology Institute Tilburg. 

[Screenshot of Dr. Anne-Marie de Brouwer, testifying on 22 April 2015.]

Her experience is related to the impact on disclosure of identifying information of victims and witnesses. She researched the impact of prosecution of international crimes before international tribunals on their lives of witnesses and victims, and ultimately their willingness to testify before those international tribunals. Her task was to assess the impact of disclosure of identifying witness information on the witnesses or victims in question, by looking at other international tribunals.

In her report, she mentioned two effects on witnesses: first, the safety of the witnesses, and second, the effects that disclosure has on the administration of justice. Besides clear safety issues such as threats, intimidation and even killings, disclosure of identifying information can also lead to stigmatisation, and psychological and socioeconomic harm. Disclosing this kind of information has a significant risk for the lives of the witnesses and can result in interference with the administration of justice, Dr. De Brouwer testified.

Counsel Karim Khan for the defence attempted to, aggressively but successfully, discredit the witness's impartiality and expertise in her reporting on this specific case. The fact that this expert witness had never been to Lebanon, nor studied the situation of Lebanon, was not deemed relevant in her own opinion, but defence counsel asked her detailed questions about this. Counsel Khan supported the defence theory by making this expert confirm that witnesses giving evidence in public has never discredited any international tribunal, hence, disclosing the identities of any purported witnesses would not have discredited the Tribunal's reputation in this case either. The expert witness was asked questions by the greater expert, Karim Khan, a defence counsel with extensive experience before most international tribunals. In her report, Dr. De Brouwer alleged that several ICTY cases and the Muthaura case before the ICC had not led to convictions due to witness interference, which statement she could not maintain under Khan's rigorous questioning. 

The Prosecutor Kenneth Scott attempted repeatedly to object to Mr. Khan's questioning of the witness, mostly relying on the  irrelevance of the line of questioning, but was unsuccessful in his objections. Mr. Khan managed to portray this witness as biased towards the prosecution case. Perhaps it was not so much the witness who was to blame for the content of her report and how that lacked importance for the prosecution case, but more so the prosecution itself, who chose to bring this report into evidence, thereby creating an opportunity for the defence to fiercely attack it. As indeed stated by counsel for the defence during his cros-examination, the topic of the report should not have been dealt with by an expert witness. This was indeed evidenced by the fact that defence counsel had much greater knowledge of the topic than the expert herself.

Conclusion of the Prosecution case

With Dr. De Brouwer, the Prosecution case came to an end. It is very difficult for outside monitors to assess the credibility of the Prosecution's allegations, given that so much of the core evidence in this case remains confidential. This is very unfortunate, because the debate about this issue in Lebanon is very heated and evolves around the basic human right of freedom of expression. It is crucial that, whatever the outcome of this case, the public has access to the relevant information in this case. The current debate has the potential of undermining the STL's credibility within Lebanon, and if the public does not have access to the relevant documents and information, especially if the Court would come to a guilty verdict, the journalistic community within Lebanon may not be able to understand this decision, therewith undermining the Court's credibility, an unwanted development for the STL.

The defence case will follow, and hopefully will reveal more information about the content of the case and the specific allegations against Ms Khayat and Al Jadeed TV.

Contempt case at the Lebanon Tribunal: The Prosecution case

On 16 April, the Prosecution started the presentation of its evidence in the first contempt case against Al Jadeed S.A.L. and Ms Karma Al Khayat (see our blog post on the Prosecution and Defence opening statements that day). That same day, the Prosecution called its first witness, Mr. Comeau.

Witness Mr. John Comeau

Mr. John Comeau is a former STL staff member who was tasked with having direct contact with Prosecution witnesses about, among others, security concerns. He was the person that contacted the witnesses after the Prosecution became aware of the broadcasts by Al Jadeed. Only shortly after Mr Comeau's testimony started however, the court went into private session. Although this still remains to be seen, it seems likely that a large part of the evidence in the contempt case will not be available to the public. Some of the main evidentiary questions may therefore remain unanswered for the larger public, for example to what extent Al Jadeed in fact did or did not reveal the identity of (purported) protected witnesses, a matter that has been left unclear in the Prosecution’s submissions so far (or at least in the submissions that have been made available to the public), but which is probably one of the key issues in this case. This is very unfortunate, especially since this case has drawn so much attention and public debate within Lebanese society. 

Karim Khan, QC, counsel for Ms. Al Khayat and Al Jadeed TV, cross-examined this witness the subsequent day, 17 April. During cross-examination, the witness was presented with an article from the German newspaper Der Spiegel published in 2009, which revealed confidential information about the case at the time. The Prosecutor amicus Mr. Kenneth Scott objected to this line of questioning, indicating that it would be irrelevant and that the court ruled previously in decisions on pre-trial motions that the selective prosecution and the fact that other people should have been prosecuted, is not a defence. However, Judge Lettieri ruled that the line of questioning could be relevant to the defence strategy, and dismissed the Prosecution objection. In responding to questions by Mr. Khan, the witness said he was not aware of any action undertaken by the STL in response to this information.

The witness was shown several other newspaper articles that disclosed confidential information. The defence seems to want to prove that the idea behind initiating this case was to silence the press in Lebanon, and more specifically Al Khayat and her media corporation Al Jadeed. That the Prosecution could have initiated contempt cases in similar cases, but decided not to. An interesting strategy, and it remains to be seen whether the information contained in the various instances was indeed of a similar nature, in which case the defence may have a point, or whether the information disclosed in this particular case was of a different nature, and thus indeed warranted prosecution.

The witness agreed to a statement by defence counsel that no names were in fact given in the broadcast, and that the faces of the witnesses were pixelated to some degree. The witness vaguely remembered another broadcast by Al Jadeed, of beginning of 2011, containing interviews between Mr. Saad Hariri and a Prosecution investigator. Counsel stated that Al Jadeed had identified its interest in reporting on the Tribunal back then. The witness did not recall whether the Prosecution threatened Al Jadeed with prosecution at that time. The following part was in private session.

Witness Ms. Veronique Bernard

Ms. Bernard is currently Field Safety Adviser for UNHCR in the Congo; prior to that, she was Head of Field Security at the STL in the Beirut Office, between approximately February 2012 and May 2013. Ms. Bernard was asked by Mr. Lodge, who will be called as a witness in this trial on 20 April, to give several documents to a television station; the witness could not recall the name of the station. She was requested to personally deliver four envelopes to a manager in the TV station. According to Ms. Bernard, these letters had a connection with the disclosure of certain witness names to the TV station. The witness handed the four envelopes to Mr. Dsouki, a manager at the TV station. 

The witness knew vaguely about the content of the envelopes, about which Mr. Lodge had briefed her. It contained information for the TV station that it could not disclose or broadcast. In August 2012, Mr. Lodge called the witness again that she had to deliver another three letters to deliver to the TV station, which she did. She was told to do things 'low key' and not make an official appointment, first because it was late at night, and secondly because it was a rather sensitive area.

This witness was cross-examined by co-counsel for the defence, Mr. Rodney Dixon. The witness explained that she was merely a postman, only doing what she was told to do by Mr. Lodge. Mr. Dixon tried to discredit this witness's evidence by questioning the manner in which she delivered the envelopes and to whom she did that. 

Witness Mr. Akram Rahal

The third witness called by the amicus Prosecutor was Mr. Akram Rahal, a Chief Warrant Officer with the Judicial Police Service in Lebanon. On 14 August 2012 he was assigned by the head of the section to a mission upon the request of the Prosecutor General to serve Ms. Mariam El-Bassam with several documents. Ms. El-Bassam is the head of the news section of Al Jadeed TV. After receiving this assignment, the witness called Ms. El-Bassam for an appointment to deliver these documents. Mr. Rahal delivered several documents to Ms. El-Basam in the Al Jadeed building, together with his colleague Mr. Ziad Eid, a chief warrant officer. After delivery of those documents, they signed a receipt, showing that they served her the papers, and she signed the receipt.

This witness was also cross-examined by defence counsel Mr. Dixon, who questioned Mr. Rahal about the receipt and whether a copy thereof was provided to Ms. El-Bassam, which was not the case.

Witness Mr. Anthony Lodge

On 20th April, Mr. Lodge testified in the contempt case. Mr. Lodge has been Head of the STL Beirut Office since June 2010, and the testimony evolved mainly around an Order of the then-Pre Trial Judge Daniel Fransen of 10 August 2012. That Order directed Al Jadeed TV, its employees, agents and affiliates not to disseminate any confidential information relating to the Tribunal and its purported witnesses. Al Jadeed began broadcasting televised reports on 6 August 2012, and in spite of a notice (Notice of Cease and Desist for Al Jadeed TV) sent electronically by the Registrar to Al Jadeed on 7 August 2012, Al Jadeed continued its broadcasts on 7, 8 and 9 August. Whilst the faces of the witnesses were slightly obscured, the Prosecution is of the opinion that the faces of the witnesses remained recognisable. The Notice was sent electronically, but also an attempt was made to hand deliver by a senior security officer of the STL Beirut office to Mr. Ibrahim Dsouki of Al Jadeed TV; however, he failed to do so. On 10 August 2012, the Order by the Pre-Trial Judge was delivered to Al Jadeed, both physically and electronically to Ms Khayat, who was in France at the time. The witness never received confirmation of receipt of his email. The physical delivery the subsequent day, 11 August, was not successful either. On 14 August, the documents were served on Al Jadeed by the Lebanese authorities. In response to questions from the defence of Ms Khayat, the witness had to confirm that there is no document that proves that the Order was served on Ms Khayat on 10 August 2012. The remainder of this witness's testimony was held in private session.

Other witnesses testified in private session

Various other witnesses testified in private session, including witnesses AP11, AP12 and AP13.

Witness Dr. Anne-Marie de Brouwer

The last witness to testify on behalf of the Prosecution was expert witness Dr. De Brouwer, Associate Professor of Criminal Law at Tilburg University, and research fellow with the International Victimology Institute Tilburg. 

[Screenshot of Dr. Anne-Marie de Brouwer, testifying on 22 April 2015.]

Her experience is related to the impact on disclosure of identifying information of victims and witnesses. She researched the impact of prosecution of international crimes before international tribunals on their lives of witnesses and victims, and ultimately their willingness to testify before those international tribunals. Her task was to assess the impact of disclosure of identifying witness information on the witnesses or victims in question, by looking at other international tribunals.

In her report, she mentioned two effects on witnesses: first, the safety of the witnesses, and second, the effects that disclosure has on the administration of justice. Besides clear safety issues such as threats, intimidation and even killings, disclosure of identifying information can also lead to stigmatisation, and psychological and socioeconomic harm. Disclosing this kind of information has a significant risk for the lives of the witnesses and can result in interference with the administration of justice, Dr. De Brouwer testified.

Counsel Karim Khan for the defence attempted to, aggressively but successfully, discredit the witness's impartiality and expertise in her reporting on this specific case. The fact that this expert witness had never been to Lebanon, nor studied the situation of Lebanon, was not deemed relevant in her own opinion, but defence counsel asked her detailed questions about this. Counsel Khan supported the defence theory by making this expert confirm that witnesses giving evidence in public has never discredited any international tribunal, hence, disclosing the identities of any purported witnesses would not have discredited the Tribunal's reputation in this case either. The expert witness was asked questions by the greater expert, Karim Khan, a defence counsel with extensive experience before most international tribunals. In her report, Dr. De Brouwer alleged that several ICTY cases and the Muthaura case before the ICC had not led to convictions due to witness interference, which statement she could not maintain under Khan's rigorous questioning. 

The Prosecutor Kenneth Scott attempted repeatedly to object to Mr. Khan's questioning of the witness, mostly relying on the  irrelevance of the line of questioning, but was unsuccessful in his objections. Mr. Khan managed to portray this witness as biased towards the prosecution case. Perhaps it was not so much the witness who was to blame for the content of her report and how that lacked importance for the prosecution case, but more so the prosecution itself, who chose to bring this report into evidence, thereby creating an opportunity for the defence to fiercely attack it. As indeed stated by counsel for the defence during his cros-examination, the topic of the report should not have been dealt with by an expert witness. This was indeed evidenced by the fact that defence counsel had much greater knowledge of the topic than the expert herself.

Conclusion of the Prosecution case

With Dr. De Brouwer, the Prosecution case came to an end. It is very difficult for outside monitors to assess the credibility of the Prosecution's allegations, given that so much of the core evidence in this case remains confidential. This is very unfortunate, because the debate about this issue in Lebanon is very heated and evolves around the basic human right of freedom of expression. It is crucial that, whatever the outcome of this case, the public has access to the relevant information in this case. The current debate has the potential of undermining the STL's credibility within Lebanon, and if the public does not have access to the relevant documents and information, especially if the Court would come to a guilty verdict, the journalistic community within Lebanon may not be able to understand this decision, therewith undermining the Court's credibility, an unwanted development for the STL.

The defence case will follow, and hopefully will reveal more information about the content of the case and the specific allegations against Ms Khayat and Al Jadeed TV.

Contempt case at the Lebanon Tribunal: The Prosecution case

On 16 April, the Prosecution started the presentation of its evidence in the first contempt case against Al Jadeed S.A.L. and Ms Karma Al Khayat (see our blog post on the Prosecution and Defence opening statements that day). That same day, the Prosecution called its first witness, Mr. Comeau.

Witness Mr. John Comeau

Mr. John Comeau is a former STL staff member who was tasked with having direct contact with Prosecution witnesses about, among others, security concerns. He was the person that contacted the witnesses after the Prosecution became aware of the broadcasts by Al Jadeed. Only shortly after Mr Comeau's testimony started however, the court went into private session. Although this still remains to be seen, it seems likely that a large part of the evidence in the contempt case will not be available to the public. Some of the main evidentiary questions may therefore remain unanswered for the larger public, for example to what extent Al Jadeed in fact did or did not reveal the identity of (purported) protected witnesses, a matter that has been left unclear in the Prosecution’s submissions so far (or at least in the submissions that have been made available to the public), but which is probably one of the key issues in this case. This is very unfortunate, especially since this case has drawn so much attention and public debate within Lebanese society. 

Karim Khan, QC, counsel for Ms. Al Khayat and Al Jadeed TV, cross-examined this witness the subsequent day, 17 April. During cross-examination, the witness was presented with an article from the German newspaper Der Spiegel published in 2009, which revealed confidential information about the case at the time. The Prosecutor amicus Mr. Kenneth Scott objected to this line of questioning, indicating that it would be irrelevant and that the court ruled previously in decisions on pre-trial motions that the selective prosecution and the fact that other people should have been prosecuted, is not a defence. However, Judge Lettieri ruled that the line of questioning could be relevant to the defence strategy, and dismissed the Prosecution objection. In responding to questions by Mr. Khan, the witness said he was not aware of any action undertaken by the STL in response to this information.

The witness was shown several other newspaper articles that disclosed confidential information. The defence seems to want to prove that the idea behind initiating this case was to silence the press in Lebanon, and more specifically Al Khayat and her media corporation Al Jadeed. That the Prosecution could have initiated contempt cases in similar cases, but decided not to. An interesting strategy, and it remains to be seen whether the information contained in the various instances was indeed of a similar nature, in which case the defence may have a point, or whether the information disclosed in this particular case was of a different nature, and thus indeed warranted prosecution.

The witness agreed to a statement by defence counsel that no names were in fact given in the broadcast, and that the faces of the witnesses were pixelated to some degree. The witness vaguely remembered another broadcast by Al Jadeed, of beginning of 2011, containing interviews between Mr. Saad Hariri and a Prosecution investigator. Counsel stated that Al Jadeed had identified its interest in reporting on the Tribunal back then. The witness did not recall whether the Prosecution threatened Al Jadeed with prosecution at that time. The following part was in private session.

Witness Ms. Veronique Bernard

Ms. Bernard is currently Field Safety Adviser for UNHCR in the Congo; prior to that, she was Head of Field Security at the STL in the Beirut Office, between approximately February 2012 and May 2013. Ms. Bernard was asked by Mr. Lodge, who will be called as a witness in this trial on 20 April, to give several documents to a television station; the witness could not recall the name of the station. She was requested to personally deliver four envelopes to a manager in the TV station. According to Ms. Bernard, these letters had a connection with the disclosure of certain witness names to the TV station. The witness handed the four envelopes to Mr. Dsouki, a manager at the TV station. 

The witness knew vaguely about the content of the envelopes, about which Mr. Lodge had briefed her. It contained information for the TV station that it could not disclose or broadcast. In August 2012, Mr. Lodge called the witness again that she had to deliver another three letters to deliver to the TV station, which she did. She was told to do things 'low key' and not make an official appointment, first because it was late at night, and secondly because it was a rather sensitive area.

This witness was cross-examined by co-counsel for the defence, Mr. Rodney Dixon. The witness explained that she was merely a postman, only doing what she was told to do by Mr. Lodge. Mr. Dixon tried to discredit this witness's evidence by questioning the manner in which she delivered the envelopes and to whom she did that. 

Witness Mr. Akram Rahal

The third witness called by the amicus Prosecutor was Mr. Akram Rahal, a Chief Warrant Officer with the Judicial Police Service in Lebanon. On 14 August 2012 he was assigned by the head of the section to a mission upon the request of the Prosecutor General to serve Ms. Mariam El-Bassam with several documents. Ms. El-Bassam is the head of the news section of Al Jadeed TV. After receiving this assignment, the witness called Ms. El-Bassam for an appointment to deliver these documents. Mr. Rahal delivered several documents to Ms. El-Basam in the Al Jadeed building, together with his colleague Mr. Ziad Eid, a chief warrant officer. After delivery of those documents, they signed a receipt, showing that they served her the papers, and she signed the receipt.

This witness was also cross-examined by defence counsel Mr. Dixon, who questioned Mr. Rahal about the receipt and whether a copy thereof was provided to Ms. El-Bassam, which was not the case.

Witness Mr. Anthony Lodge

On 20th April, Mr. Lodge testified in the contempt case. Mr. Lodge has been Head of the STL Beirut Office since June 2010, and the testimony evolved mainly around an Order of the then-Pre Trial Judge Daniel Fransen of 10 August 2012. That Order directed Al Jadeed TV, its employees, agents and affiliates not to disseminate any confidential information relating to the Tribunal and its purported witnesses. Al Jadeed began broadcasting televised reports on 6 August 2012, and in spite of a notice (Notice of Cease and Desist for Al Jadeed TV) sent electronically by the Registrar to Al Jadeed on 7 August 2012, Al Jadeed continued its broadcasts on 7, 8 and 9 August. Whilst the faces of the witnesses were slightly obscured, the Prosecution is of the opinion that the faces of the witnesses remained recognisable. The Notice was sent electronically, but also an attempt was made to hand deliver by a senior security officer of the STL Beirut office to Mr. Ibrahim Dsouki of Al Jadeed TV; however, he failed to do so. On 10 August 2012, the Order by the Pre-Trial Judge was delivered to Al Jadeed, both physically and electronically to Ms Khayat, who was in France at the time. The witness never received confirmation of receipt of his email. The physical delivery the subsequent day, 11 August, was not successful either. On 14 August, the documents were served on Al Jadeed by the Lebanese authorities. In response to questions from the defence of Ms Khayat, the witness had to confirm that there is no document that proves that the Order was served on Ms Khayat on 10 August 2012. The remainder of this witness's testimony was held in private session.

Other witnesses testified in private session

Various other witnesses testified in private session, including witnesses AP11, AP12 and AP13.

Witness Dr. Anne-Marie de Brouwer

The last witness to testify on behalf of the Prosecution was expert witness Dr. De Brouwer, Associate Professor of Criminal Law at Tilburg University, and research fellow with the International Victimology Institute Tilburg. 

[Screenshot of Dr. Anne-Marie de Brouwer, testifying on 22 April 2015.]

Her experience is related to the impact on disclosure of identifying information of victims and witnesses. She researched the impact of prosecution of international crimes before international tribunals on their lives of witnesses and victims, and ultimately their willingness to testify before those international tribunals. Her task was to assess the impact of disclosure of identifying witness information on the witnesses or victims in question, by looking at other international tribunals.

In her report, she mentioned two effects on witnesses: first, the safety of the witnesses, and second, the effects that disclosure has on the administration of justice. Besides clear safety issues such as threats, intimidation and even killings, disclosure of identifying information can also lead to stigmatisation, and psychological and socioeconomic harm. Disclosing this kind of information has a significant risk for the lives of the witnesses and can result in interference with the administration of justice, Dr. De Brouwer testified.

Counsel Karim Khan for the defence attempted to, aggressively but successfully, discredit the witness's impartiality and expertise in her reporting on this specific case. The fact that this expert witness had never been to Lebanon, nor studied the situation of Lebanon, was not deemed relevant in her own opinion, but defence counsel asked her detailed questions about this. Counsel Khan supported the defence theory by making this expert confirm that witnesses giving evidence in public has never discredited any international tribunal, hence, disclosing the identities of any purported witnesses would not have discredited the Tribunal's reputation in this case either. The expert witness was asked questions by the greater expert, Karim Khan, a defence counsel with extensive experience before most international tribunals. In her report, Dr. De Brouwer alleged that several ICTY cases and the Muthaura case before the ICC had not led to convictions due to witness interference, which statement she could not maintain under Khan's rigorous questioning. 

The Prosecutor Kenneth Scott attempted repeatedly to object to Mr. Khan's questioning of the witness, mostly relying on the  irrelevance of the line of questioning, but was unsuccessful in his objections. Mr. Khan managed to portray this witness as biased towards the prosecution case. Perhaps it was not so much the witness who was to blame for the content of her report and how that lacked importance for the prosecution case, but more so the prosecution itself, who chose to bring this report into evidence, thereby creating an opportunity for the defence to fiercely attack it. As indeed stated by counsel for the defence during his cros-examination, the topic of the report should not have been dealt with by an expert witness. This was indeed evidenced by the fact that defence counsel had much greater knowledge of the topic than the expert herself.

Conclusion of the Prosecution case

With Dr. De Brouwer, the Prosecution case came to an end. It is very difficult for outside monitors to assess the credibility of the Prosecution's allegations, given that so much of the core evidence in this case remains confidential. This is very unfortunate, because the debate about this issue in Lebanon is very heated and evolves around the basic human right of freedom of expression. It is crucial that, whatever the outcome of this case, the public has access to the relevant information in this case. The current debate has the potential of undermining the STL's credibility within Lebanon, and if the public does not have access to the relevant documents and information, especially if the Court would come to a guilty verdict, the journalistic community within Lebanon may not be able to understand this decision, therewith undermining the Court's credibility, an unwanted development for the STL.

The defence case will follow, and hopefully will reveal more information about the content of the case and the specific allegations against Ms Khayat and Al Jadeed TV.

Ali Hamade testifies at the Lebanon Tribunal

This witness, Mr. Ali Hamade, is the younger brother of Mr. Marwan Hamade, who testified earlier in this case (see our blog post). Ali Hamade testified on 13 and 14 April for the Prosecution. This witness is a jounrliast at the An-Nahar newspaper. He writes one of the political editorials. He accompanied Mr. Hariri on official and non-official visits. After he started covering Rafik Hariri's activities, the two became very close. The witness acted as an intermediary between Hariri and President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria.

The witness informed the Trial Chamber of his idea of a future movement network that he presented to Hariri in the summer of 2004. Lebanon was divided on the presidential extension, and the witness was among those who opposed Lahoud's extension. Rafik Hariri was also challenging the extension, and trying to change the political scene. The idea Hariri and the witness discussed that summer was to start a media campaign opposing the extension. Rafik Hariri was heavily pressured by the Syrians to stop this campaign against the extension; there was pressure on his television station and Future TV (Al-Mustaqal TV) suffered from a rocket attack. No investigation resulted, but they knew it was the Syrians who were behind this. This was not official information, but there were many rumours to that extent.

 [Screenshot of Mr. Ali Hamade testifying in court.]

Mr. Hamade understood that Mr. Hariri was under great pressure, including by President Lahoud himself. After the attack on the Future TV had taken place in June 2003, and things changed after that, Hariri was less involved in direct confrontation with the Syrians and even President Lahoud. Future TV had reduced its political tone afterwards. During 2004, Hariri became more involved in the opposition movement. 

After Lahoud's term was extended, the witness met with Rafik Hariri, and the latter informed him that "the show will continue. The battle has started". The Prime Minister had two meetings in Damascus, the second of which took place in August of 2004. Hariri attended the meeting "because he did not want the country to explode", testifies Hamade. 

In cross-examination, the witness is asked about the attack on Future TV and who was behind that. The witness remains confident it was the Syrians who must have been behind that, in spite of a Jihadi group who claimed responsibility. The witness further testifies about some of the Lebanese judiciary exerting influence or pressure on Lebanese politicians. 

El-Sabeh testifies at the STL

Witness El Sabeh appeared in court between 16 and 19 March 2015, testifying on the role Syria played in Lebanese internal affairs and ultimately in the 14 February 2005 attack that killed former President Rafik Hariri. Again, this witness was a longtime friend and confidant and political ally of the late Prime Minister.

[Screenshot of witness El-Sabeh in court.]

The Prosecution started examining this witness about the relationship between Hariri and the Syrian regime, Syrian interference in Lebanese politics, and its evolvement throughout the years. The witness testified about three meetings between Rafik Hariri and Syrian officials, that took place between 1999 and 2004. In 1999, Hariri for the first time met with Bashar al Assad at the request of Syrian President Hafaz al Assad. The witness accompanied Hariri on his trip to Damascus, though he did not attend the actual meeting. After the meeting, Hariri told El-Sabeh, referring to Bashar al Assad, "God help Syria, Syria will be ruled by a child".

In December of 2003, another meeting was held in Damascus, this time with Bashar al Assad in power. The witness did not accompany Mr. Hariri on this trip, but the latter briefed the witness about the meeting the same day. The meeting had been with President Assad, Brigadier-General Ghazi Kanaan, Rustom Ghazaleh and Brigadier-General Mohammad Khallouf. Whilst President Assad was quiet during most of the meeting, the other three men all threw accusations against Hariri. He said afterwards that

"I thought for a second that I should stand up and leave because of the harsh words I heard from them, words given by officers to a prime minister, subordinates saying those words, and I felt personally insulted and I felt my country was insulted."

 And the witness repeats what Hariri had said to him the three officials had said to him during that meeting:

"Who are you? What's your worth without Syria? You're nothing without Syria. You're nothing without His Excellency President Bashar Al-Assad. We made you prime minister and we can make you prime minister." 

According to this witness, Hariri was also informed to do something about the media and their reporting on the role of Syria in Lebanon.

The third, and last, meeting was held in late August 2004, and later that day, Hariri met with the witness and others. Hariri informed them that the meeting had not gone well. The topic was the extension of President Emile Lahoud's term, and the Syrian officials had asked Hariri to submit the extension to Parliament. The witness says that Hariri interpreted the words of Bashar al Assad as an order, not as a question.

Whilst the Syrian officials requested Hariri to support Lahoud's extension on the one hand, on the other hand Hariri became part of the Bristol Group, which was considered to constitute a form of national reconciliation; a project aiming to reject the Syrian presence in Lebanon. This Bristol Group was the founding force of a new political movement in Lebanon. The new political opposition in Lebanon was founded by its creation, and preparing for the 2005 parliamentary elections.

On 1 February 2005, two weeks before his assassination, Hariri was met by Walid Moallem, Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister, on behalf of the Syrian regime. The main point of this meeting was "an attempt by the Syrian leadership to say that they are talking to Rafik Hariri following the problems which were getting more acute and the differences that were growing between the Syrian point of view and Rafik Hariri's point of view." This meeting was the last time Rafik Hariri met with the Syrian leadership.

[Screenshot of video clip played in court during El-Sabeh's testimony. 

The still shows Rafik Hariri in front of microphones.]

The witness testifies about Hariri's position immediately preceding his assassination, and that he was ready to join the opposition unequivocally. That was a process that had been going on for months already. He was starting to build up political alliances for the upcoming parliamentary elections.

Judge Lettieri asked the witness about the role of Hezbollah. Possibly important for the defence, the witness responded that Hezbollah was then not at the forefront of the political confrontation; it was in dialogue with Hariri. He states:

"I can say with a tranquil mind that I didn't live and I didn't witness a political confrontation between Hezbollah and Rafik Hariri in 2005. I say that with a clear conscience."

The Syrian authorities issued a campaign targeting Hariri, already in 1998, to oust him from the government, by violating article 53 of the Constitution.

The witness is further asked about the organisation Al-Ahbash in Lebanon, they are referred to as the Association of Islamic Philanthropic projects, a religious association that you will find in mosques and that will appear in rallies. The witness believes they are Sunnis, but he does not have a lot of knowledge about the topic presented to him by the defence.