|
 |
The
Church Bombing Case
Report and analysis concerning
the trial and verdict
of Samir Geagea and the
co-accused in the case
of the bombing of the
church of Sayyidat Al
Najjat, Zouk Mikayel No.3
of 1994.
Table of Content
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 CHARGES - INDICTMENT
3.0 POLITICAL AGENDA
4.0 GIRGES EL KHOURY
5.0 ACCUSED IN ABSENTIA
6.0 SAMIR GEAGEA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Paper;
This Paper is compiled
as a response and was
deemed necessary by the
writer who acts on behalf
of Dr. Geagea for the
purpose of highlighting
what are believed to be
breaches of human rights
provisions as they apply
per force of international
instruments acknowledged
by the Republic of Lebanon
and for which it has no
reciprocal observance,
either in its domestic
laws, or alternately has
failed to implement and
accord the provision of
those human rights provisions
to Dr. Geagea and his
co-accused in the trial
of the bombing of the
Church of Sayyidat Al
Najjat (hereafter the
Church).
1.2 The position that
the writer sees in presenting
this paper is not one
of commenting specifically
on the intricacies of
the Lebanese domestic
provisions concerning
the Criminal Law and its
procedure, but rather
to highlight the fact
that in the performance
of the provision of a
trial to the accused it
was less than a fair trail
and in fact constituted
a gross abuse of human
rights, resulting in a
trial which was unfair
and a verdict which was
unsafe and unsatisfactory.
1.3 The manner and method
of the analysis of the
verdict is to examine
the procedure, the evidence,
the findings and or inferences
derived therefrom and
ultimately the verdict
arrived at and assess
whether it conformed to
the precepts laid down
by the international Covenants
to which Lebanon is a
signatory.
1.4 In addition to acting
for Dr. Geagea, the writer
has also had the carriage
and control of the presentation
of representations on
behalf of Jean Youssef
Chahine, Antonios Obeid
and also a familiarity
with the defence of Mr.
Rushdi Raad as well as
acting for Mr. Rafik Al
Fahel who was the subject
of an extradition request
from Sweden to Lebanon
which was rejected shortly
after the intervention
of the writer acting in
conjunction with his Swedish
lawyers.
1.5 The verdict is a document
which is annexed to this
submission so that ease
of reference may be made
to observe and follow
the argument in the analysis
presented. It is obvious
we submit that when one
reads the verdict it is
capable of being followed
as a document deliberative
of the material presented
and of the conclusions
reached from that material
applying the law as it
purports to do in the
circumstances. The legal
norms that pertain to
an inquisitorial as opposed
to an adversarial system
are not such that they
would render an appreciation
of the verdict any less
capable of being viewed
for the deficiencies that
appear therein. In short,
the writer is satisfied
that in the circumstances
regardless of the manner
in which the trial proceeded
as to inquisitorial or
adversarial, there was
a gross breach of human
rights accorded to each
of the accused both those
present and in particular
those in absentia. The
accused in absentia and
hereafter to mean the
following people unless
the context otherwise
requires are Antonios
Obeid, Rushdi Raad, Jean
Chahine, Paul Al Fahel
and Rafik Al Fahel.
1.6 The significance of
the analysis of the verdict
in the manner that it
is presented is to highlight
the fact that the trial
failed to accord the basic
minimum in terms of the
conditions that have been
laid down by the various
international instruments
and in particular the
International Covenant
of Civil and Political
Rights, Universal Declaration
of Human Rights as they
apply to the domestic
forum and the laws that
implement the procedures
in such forums.
1.7 There is no doubt
in the writer's opinion
that the impetus given
to this trial for international
condemnation was in no
small part brought about
by the very pertinent
and prompt response by
Amnesty International
which was critical of
the trial of Dr. Geagea,
resulting in the conviction
for the murder of Mr.
Danny Chamoun and his
family on 24 June 1995:
Amnesty International
Index MDE 24 June 1995,
Lebanon, "Lebanese Forces
Trial Serious Flawed";
see also US Department
of State Report on Human
Rights practices for 1995
- Lebanon and Amnesty
International Report 1995
at p192.
1.8 The method in analysing
the verdict as appears
herein will be to initially
consider the method and
the approach of the Judicial
Council of Lebanon, (hereafter
the Court) and to assess
the various procedures
that were embarked upon
in the deliberation of
the Court. Further, there
will be an analysis of
the material presented
as evidence by those accused
who were present for the
trial and in particular
Mr. Malek, Mr. El Khoury
and Dr. Geagea. In addition
thereto we will also attempt
to highlight the gross
miscarriage of justice
accorded to the accused
in absentia and in particular
Mr. Obeid, Mr. Chahine
and Mr. Raad who all presented
affidavit material, duly
notarised, and which was
summarily rejected out
of hand by the Court when
the same showed that the
accused could not have
possibly been involved
in the planning, preparation
and ultimate commission
of the crime as they were
all absent from the territory
of Lebanon.
2.0 CHARGES -
INDICTMENT
2.1 The trial in respect
of the case of the bombing
of the Church was conducted
by the Court commencing
in or about November 1994
and concluding on 13 July
1996. The trial was held
on a week-end or certainly
on a part time basis being
convened on a Friday and
for half of Saturday.
Such a feature is of itself
unusual in that a trial
of such a major crime
where capital punishment
is invariably a possible
penalty and in all probability
would be called for, should
be conducted in such a
manner is rather remarkable.
The ability to concentrate,
analyse and present evidence
and conduct cross-examination
in a coherent and co-ordinate
fashion is difficult at
the best of times in a
trial that runs on a Monday
- Friday format with a
regularity as to hours
and a duration which is
to say the least permanent
from the start Until the
conclusion of the matter.
To so hold this trial
which was indicted as
a crime against the State
and an attempt to inflame
sectarian violence within
Lebanon, after it had
just come through a very
sad and sordid period
of Civil War is bizarre.
The trial running from
November 1994 until July
1996 was not only marred
by the intermittent hearing
given to it, but also
was featured with lengthy
periods of adjournment
for no explicable reason
and at times the refusal
by the Attorneys representing
the accused to continue
whilst they perceived
the treatment of the prisoners
by the Court to be less
than satisfactory. The
detention in a military
prison being an example
of the complaints registered
by defence counsel.
2.2 Initially the observation
that has to be made is
that the trial by virtue
of its intermittent hearings
was unsatisfactory with
respect to the conduct
and presented a prejudice
and a disadvantage to
the accused and their
lawyers to be able to
participate in the process
by following the evidence,
challenging and testing
it where necessary and
presenting their own cases.
Coupled with this are
the materials and the
findings that I made in
my earlier report on the
conduct of the trial of
both this matter and the
trial of Dr. Geagea for
the murder of Mr. Danny
Chamoun and his family
of which Dr. Geagea was
found guilty and sentenced
to life imprisonment.
This trial was running
in tandem with the trial
the subject of this paper
and that also in itself
constituted a gross abuse
by having to meet two
cases of a capital nature,
together with sundry offences
associated therewith,
such as possession of
firearms and weapons and/or
breaches of public order.
The joinder of several
matters on one indictment
may well be justifiable
in respect of the particular
crime at hand, but where
there is a trial of two
major matters and the
indictments for both matters
are tried jointly, it
represents a very difficult
task for any trial lawyer.
In particular in this
matter, that is to say
the trial in question
and the case concerning
the Chamoun Family, both
trials were conducted
simultaneously but on
alternate week-ends from
the Friday extending to
the Saturday by different
prosecutors, whereas the
defence teams were invariably
the same for reasons of
economy and logistics
of presenting and meeting
the material.
2.3 At the outset it must
be said that the accused
who were present are referred
to in the verdict as are
the accused who were absent.
Those accused who were
absent were as regards
Mr. Obeid and Mr. Chahine,
situated in Australia,
the former being an Australian
citizen, while the later
is a person seeking refugee
status. As regards Mr.
Raad, he is a citizen
of Canada and the A1 Fahel
brothers are residents
of Sweden and in the case
of Mr. Rafik A1 Fahel,
he has been granted asylum
and consequently citizenship.
It is my understanding
that his citizenship came
swiftly on the refusal
of the request for extradition
by the Lebanese authorities.
2.4 No formal request
was made to my knowledge
to extradite either Mr.
Obeid or Mr. Chahine from
Australia and I know of
no formal extradition
being applied for or for
that matter entertained
by the Canadian Government
in respect of Mr. Raad.
2.5 The prosecution of
the accused in respect
of the case of the Church,
was as a result of a decree
setting up the investigation
No. 4835 and dated 2 March
1994~which referred the
matter to the Court. The
case's significance is
not in anyway undermined
by the fact that it highlighted
apart from the murder
of the individual worshipers
and desecration of the
Church, it was referred
to as an assault on the
States internal security
and public safety and
sought to bring to justice
all of the perpetrators
who either participated,
instigated or interfered
in the bombing in any
capacity. Not unnaturally
the accessorial liability
of all who were responsible
in anyway shape or form
was cast as wide as possible
in terms of the drag net
that looked for suspects.
2.6 The judicial investigator
who was appointed to review
the material was Judge
Joseph Freiha. His deliberations
and investigations resulted
in an indictment, which
was dated 13 June 1994
and constituted the basis
for the presentation of
the case before the Court.
The indictment statement
that also emanated from
the office of the prosecutor
was issued on 16 June
1996 which is referred
to in the Courts judgment.
2.7 The indictments as
presented charged and
sought to portray Dr.
Geagea as the principal,
accountable for the perpetration
of the crime of the bombing
of the Church as its planner,
the one who ordered the
execution thereof and
was a participant in concealing
the perpetrators who acted
under his orders and enabled
them to flee from justice.
The motive for the bombing
was expressed to be an
attempt to bring about
an alteration to the Constitution
of the country for which
charges were laid pursuant
to articles 30, 308-315
of Punitive Act as well
as article 549 and 549
- 201 of Act 11.1.1958.
In addition the accused
Obeid, Raad, Chahine and
E1 Khoury, were each charged
pursuant to those provisions
excepting article 30 of
the Punitive Act. With
respect to Mr. Malek,
he was charged with Dr.
Geagea as participating
in the agenda and further
that he acquired military
weapons taking part in
concealing the same ensuring
there distribution thereby
breaching articles 301
and 308-315 together with
article 219 of the Punitive
Act as well as Act 11.1.1958.
2.8 As to the complicity
of the A1 Fahel brothers,
they also were charged
with respect to offences
pursuant to articles 301
and 308-315 together with
article 219 of the Punitive
Act and Act 11.1.1958.
In addition each of the
accused who are referred
to above were all charged
pursuant to article 72
of the Weapons Act. The
accused were indicted
on 16 June 1994 after
a period of arrest, interrogation
and detention which I
am informed and verily
believe was in the case
of Dr. Geagea accompanied
by torture, and in particular
to Mr. E1 Khoury. I understand
that a similar complaint
was also made by Mr. Malek.
2.9 Upon the initial presentation
of the indictment it was
noted that there were
defendants, viz. Atonios
Obeid, Rushdi Raad, Jean
Chahine, Paul A1 Fahel
and Rafik A1 Fahel, who
the judgment refers to
as "declining to appear
at the Council" It is
my understanding that
rather than declining
to appear, they were not
sought with a view to
ensuring their appearance
and in particular feared
their ability to obtain
a fair and just trial,
and in the case of Mr.
Antonios Obeid, he had
his passport detained
at the Lebanese Consulate
in Sydney on making inquiries
of the charges laid against
him. The subterfuge given
by the consulate was that
they were attempting to
investigate his passport
validity and having taken
it into their possession
refused to give it back.
Similarly Mr. Chahine
felt no confidence in
so submitting himself
when he saw how Mr. Obeid
was treated. Mr. Chahine
also made a complaint
as to the loss of his
passport through the offices
of the Lebanese Consulate
in Sydney.
2.10 The Court insofar
as it purported to give
them a concession to attend
the trial, thereafter
deemed them to be escapees
and or fugitives from
justice and then tried
them in their absence
on the basis that they
did not comply with a
request in the form of
a concession to attend
and appear in the hearing
of the matter.
2.11 In these circumstances,
justifiably in view of
the treatment by the Lebanese
Consulate in Sydney, the
gravity of the allegations
bearing in mind that the
accused tried in absentia
were as their defence
sought to show, absent
from the jurisdiction
at the critical times
of the alleged complicity
by themselves, very much
in fear of their safety
and apprehensive that
they would receive a fair
trail. No arrest having
been issued for them,
but rather a concession
given to enable them to
attend in the circumstances
they not unnaturally chose
to preserve their life
and liberty and declined
to respond to any request
of the Lebanese Government
and or the Court to return
to Lebanon, this was very
much so compounded by
the fact that the withdrawal
of the passports would
ensure that they had no
chance of having their
mobility for international
travel restored once they
were in Lebanon.
2.12 Similarly the requests
made of the A1 Fahei brothers
Were not pursued with
any vigour until it was
sought to have Mr. E1
Khoury's retraction of
his confession put into
doubt by the attempted
extradition by Mr. Rafik
A1 Fahel from Sweden which
was refused and which
saw the trial proceed
thereafter to a Conviction
of Mr. El Khoury despite
his retraction of the
alleged confession and
his allegations of torture.
2.13 The position concerning
Mr. Raad in Canada is
even more tenuous bearing
in mind that he had left
Lebanon several years
prior to the bombing of
the Church and which was
well documented by the
Canadian authorities,
consideration of which
will be given in this
report to the particularmaterial
to show that he was conclusively
nowhere :near Lebanon
at the time of the alleged
perpetration of this offence
and even in its planning
stages, but was allegedly
placed in and around Lebanon,
with very detailed descriptions
of his alleged complicity
in the crime.
2.14 In any event all
accused having been indicted,
those present were tried
in the manner referred
to above and those who
declined the invitation
to appear where tried
in their absence. The
manner in which the trial
was conducted is given
at page 4 of the Judgment
where it is recited that
the preliminary and preparatory
investigation minutes,
together with the case
documents, there tabling
for discussions, the interrogations
of the Defendants, and
the hearing or the witnesses
statements, together with
summing up by the prosecution
and the submissions of
the defence lawyers, where
all conducted and ultimately
deliberated on by the
Court arriving at its
verdict, recorded in the
Judgment and sentence
pronounced on each of
the accused at pp. 111-114.
3.0
POLITICAL AGENDA
3.1 That the highest Court
in Lebanon should allow
itself to become a conduit
for political parlance
and propaganda in of all
matters a trial for crimes
against the State carrying
penalties as serious as
capital punishment is
tragic.
3.2 This occurred in the
trial of the accused and
is borne out in the references
made by the Court at pp.
6/7 where the Court referred
to Lebanon as a civilised
country, taking 'pride
in the coexistence among
all its citizens and showing
the world that Lebanon
was a country of great
example as a tolerant
nation of all who resided
within her borders.
3.3 The Court thereafter
refereed to the State
of Israel as "the Israeli
enemy, which has evil
intentions for Lebanon's
success, either in future
or economic progress,
so it worked to destroy
Lebanon, with the assistance
of professional agents
and, for the abortion
of Lebanon security as
a result of which the
useless war took place."
That a Court should condescend
to such language and to
refer to neighbouring
sovereign States in such
a manner is both tragic
and regrettable where
at heart and at issue
is the attainment of justice
in the contest between
the State and the accused
to ensure that the path
to truth is trod carefully
and surely. To allow the
puerile proliferation
of politics into such
a consideration in the
reference made to Israel
and the intentions that
were perceived by the
Court to be the destruction
of the Lebanese State
by Israel whether founded
or unfounded, has no place
in a Court of law.
3.4. This was the template
for the consideration
of the matters against
each of the accused, both
present and in absentia
and seen as the motive
for bringing about the
possession, distribution
and use of the weapons,
together with the planting
of the bomb.
3.5 Throughout the judgment
there are many references
to the accused, in particular,
Mr. E1 Khoury, Dr. Geagea
(seen on an Israeli Warship)
and Mr Chahine, Mr Obeid
and Mr. Raad, all meeting
at hotels and/or in establishments
in the State of Israel.
Also there are references
to the arranging of visas
at frontier zones controlled
by Israel and the admiration
of the Israeli State and
its language by Mr Khoury.
To leave nothing out of
the epic proportions within
which the State of Israel's
involvement is seen, there
also crept into the judgment
the alleged romance between
Mr E1 Khoury and a Miss
Oria, (an Israeli Agent),
seen particularly as a
development on the "human
side", within the matrix
of the facts, acts and
circumstances.
3.6 Each and every sighting
of the accused in the
State of Israel, together
with the particular inferences
and ultimate findings
of fact derived from such
references, were remarkably
unsubstantiated by documentary
material. They were also
pictured as devoid of
factual corroboration,
and in Mr E1 Khoury's
case were extracted as
a result of being obtained
under torture in confessions
obtained from him which
were later retracted.
As to the sighting of
Mr Raad, Mr Obeid and
Mr Chahine, each of these
references were similarly
lacking in corroborative
confirmation.
3.7 The presence of Israel's
involvement was juxtaposed
as one of the reasons
for the cancellation of
the visit of His Holiness.
It was also cited as the
continuing festering cause
for dissension in the
stability and attainment
of peace in Lebanon.
3.8 There was also reference
to the concept of the
Canton system that is
operative in Switzerland
and much approved by Dr.
Geagea as a possible future
model for Lebanon. This
was refereed to by the
Court as the "Mini-State
Concept", and was if not
explicitly then certainly
inferentially derided
and adds to the political
prose which literally
abounds in the judgment
and in particular is condemnatory
of the accused, Dr. Geagea,
and his role as a Christian
leader which is perceived
as nothing more than a
nuisance value by the
Court and one responsible
for national division
and turmoil.
3.9 The Court in giving
in to what is obviously
a submission which ignores
facts and refuses to look
at the evidence, becomes
a proselyte of the political
parody and the Judges
in turn regrettably become
puppets in the theatre
of a trial which is seeking
to make excuses for the
inability to achieve a
just and sensible political
solution to a nation's
woes. In turn it is a
reflex response to those
who ultimately control
and administer Lebanon
and are hell bent on repressing
the expression of freedom
of speech and seek to
emasculate those who differ
with the regime.
3.10 Such an intrusion
into politics abrogates
utterly and convincingly
any attempt to administer
justice and achieve a
fair trial between the
interests of the State
and the accused. It impacts
on article six of the
International Covenant
on Civil and Political
Rights (hereafter ICCPR),
in particular that the
death penalty could be
imposed is in breach of
Part III, article 6(2)
and also is in breach
of article 7, where it
could be established that
a person was tortured
or subjected to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment. This must
be said of the treatment
of Mr El Khoury as it
emerged in the course
of the trial.
3.11 In addition to the
failure by the Court to
implement article 6 of
Part III of the ICCPR
it also infringed, we
would submit, the fact
that the penalty was imposed
in breach of the Covenants
injunction that no such
penalty was to be passed,
unless it was pursuant
to a final judgment. This
could never be the case
in question because the
final judgment was incapable
of review by an Appellate
Court, as the Judicial
Council is the Supreme
Court from which there
is no appeal, and thus
it is in breach of article
14 (5) of the ICCPR.
3.12 It is now proposed
to consider each of the
cases of the accused and
in such detail as is necessary
to exemplify the propositions
advanced and to highlight
the considerations that
we say are applicable
to the matters at hand.
4.0
GIRGES EL KHOURY
4.1 The prime sources
of evidence against Mr.
El Khoury were as follows:
a). His alleged confession
and an enactment of the
crime, 28 March 1994,
which he did in person
at the Chief of Staff
Building together with
drawings that he made
placing the Defendants'
in absentia at that area.
b). Evidence derived from
his frequent visits to
Israel - seven.
c). The involvement with
a girl called, Manassa,
also known as Ms Vera
Oria and;
d). The evidence of contradictions
which the accused gave
in response to questions
in the interrogatory procedures
and in the course of final
investigations conducted
prior to the trial Generally.
4.2 The defence of Mr
E1 Khoury was given at
pp. 19-26.
4.3 There were both oral
and written submissions
prepared on this Defendant's
behalf.
4.4 Essentially the circumstances
in which Mr. El Khoury
found himself were as
a result of the bombing
of the Church, he became
a suspect, but for no
particular reason. He
was alleged to have had
contacts with Israel,
and when his family where
set upon by the authorities,
he came out of hiding
and was taken into custody.
The custody that he was
taken into was of a military
and not civil nature,
and hence was highlighted
by his defence as being
in breach of the provisions
and violated articles
47 & 99 of the Criminal
Trials Act and accordingly
should have been annulled
as a defective action
and/or step taken in the
prosecution of Mr. E1
Khoury pursuant to article
340 of the Criminal Trials
Act. The investigation
was of itself conducted
at a military camp/establishment,
and was tainted by the
subjection of Mr. El Khoury
to psychological, physical
and extreme bouts of mental
and physical violence
in an effort to extract
a confession -which was
ultimately successful
- but which was finally
retracted when Mr. E1
Khoury would have confidently
assumed that a Court of
law would have assessed
his retraction for what
it was worth, namely an
explanation of the response
that he gave under severe
mental and physical pressure
and which he sought to
retract at the first available
public opportunity. He
was denied his lawyer
or the presence of a legal
adviser in violation of
article 71, such exclusion
of a legal representative
was to enable the authorities
to obtain a confession
and each in turn, that
is to say the civil prosecutorial
authority and the military
authority, competed against
each other to obtain such
a confession.
4.5 The contradictions
that were utilised by
the Court ultimately to
convict Mr. E1 Khoury
were to say the least
ridiculous. They refer
to the fact that no one
can act on a confession
as conclusive and in accordance
with the manner in which
it is treated by the Lebanese
domestic criminal law,
unless it is supported
by other evidence, i.e.,
corroborated. That such
is a universal application
of the criminal law in
any system, whether it
is adversarial or inquisitorial,
is a trite observation.
The defence sought to
set up the fact that the
accused would have hardly
had the facility and/or
the mobility to travel
to Israel on the numerous
occasions that they allege
he said he did, and more
particularly, that his
confession was to be seen
for what it was, namely,
a matter that was extracted
by torture and/or physical
abuse and violence because
of the fact that in the
circumstance the presence
of Raad, Obeid and Chahine
was physically impossible
both as to the frequency
of sightings and the localities
in question in view of
the affidavit evidence
presented by each of those
co-accused and which were
relied upon by this Defendant
as well as in Dr. Geagea's
case.
4.6 An enactment - by
a person in custody, and
one who is allegedly being
tortured is hardly surprising.
That he should then carry
on with the thespian portrayal
of not only acting out
the scenario, but, resorting
to the graphic and pictorial
depiction of such events
and referring to other
incidents which he put
in a diagram and signed,
is hardly convincing and/or
corroborative, even though
it was accepted as being
the basic requirement
by the Court. In other
words to hold up what
is the principle, and
then find that the same
Zhad been complied with
on the most pathetic of
material, and implausibly
so, is to make a mockery
of justice as the judicial
council did in the case
at bar. The reliance on
Ms Antoinette Chahine,
whose whereabouts is still
unknown, having been taken
into custody and held
without trial and charge
being preferred against
her, (sister of co-accused
Jean Chahine) is equally
incapable we would submit,
of supporting the States
ultimate findings. In
fact her evidence was
in support of Mr El Khoury
and her brother that they
were not in Lebanon, ie,
the brother and Mr E1
Khoury, as referred to
and that Mr Chahine was
for some time and more
particularly at the pertinent
times, in Cyprus, which
he deposed to in his affidavit.
4.7 Mr. E1 Khoury's position
was that effectively he
had been tortured, and
he maintained the same
at the trial, and the
medical evidence was inconclusive
to refute such claims.
That he did not come to
trial and was not publicly
arraigned or seen from
the time Of his arrest
in March 1994 until the
trial in November 1994
is ample evidence of the
fact that there was both
opportunity and motive
to enable the carrying
out of the torture at
the military establishment
of Yarzi as was maintained
and occurred. The medical
evidence to refute such
claims as advanced by
the State was both mediocre
and devoid of any documentary
proof corroborating the
same. No medical records
and/or independent examination
by a doctor of the accused's
choice or alternatively,
a doctor agreed upon by
both parties mutually,
was made available to
refute convincingly the
claims of torture which
were maintained and adhered
to by Mr. El Khoury throughout
the trial. The Court dealt
with Mr. El Khoury's defence
at pp. 66 - 81. It was
to say the least disheartening
in its attempt to treat
the defence case with
any respect. The Court
relied on, and gave evidence
to the alleged involvement
by Mr. E1 Khoury with
the State of Israel, and
in particular his enlisting
in its Intelligence Service.
Despite the fact that
he had alibi material
presented from the French
Cultural Centre for his
whereabouts on certain
occasions, this was disregarded.
Pathetic and desperate
were the attempts to stretch
tenuous facts into ultimate
findings can be seen from
the use of identikit pictures
of the co-accused drawn
by this accused and in
particular putting glasses
on Mr. Raad who I am informed
and verily believe, having
met the person and having
spoken to him on lengthy
occasions in Montreal
where he is presently
residing, that he has
never worn glasses in
his life. To so say that
because he put glasses
on him in the identikit
picture that convincingly
showed that he knew Mr.
Rushdi Raad is a bizarre
example of the judicial
process gone askew. It
is hardly an example of
inductive reasoning. The
alleged depiction of the
Church and its details
as drawn by this accused
and the absence between
what it was like before
and after the bombing
are hardly capable, bearing
in mind the scenario in
which they came about
(torture and he being
in custody without bail
and Without any prospect
of being placed in a civilian
establishment as opposed
to a military establishment),
would hardly lend credence
as pieces of evidence
that are sufficiently
corroborative, both independently
and of their own weight.
Also relied upon was the
evidence of his brother,
Anwar. El. Khoury and
his relationship with
the Israeli authorities
and his acquaintance with
Ms Vera Oria and most
convincingly the eventual
"development of a love
affair between them" -
p. 71. Coupled with this
is his alleged flight
and his disappearance.
His response to this was,
in view of the focus of
attention of the government
on former Lebanese Forces
members, puts his flight
as both understandable
and a rationale response
in the circumstances.
This of course was not
so regarded and more particularly
the Court in attempting
to analyse the evidence
at pp. 72 - 81, systematically,
clumsily but convincingly
tore out the logic and
rationale of each and
every proposition that
was posited by the defence,
and in particular, where
evidence supported the
defence it was ridiculed
and reduced with comments
which rendered the assessment
of it absurd on the part
of the Court, in their
desperate efforts to reduce
his defence thus making
a mockery of it in its
ultimate rejection.
4.8 The confession was
attended by torture and
gross abuse of the position
that the authorities were
in having the care and
custody of the Defendant
as their prisoner pending
investigation and ultimately
being charged. The report
of Dr Kahwahji, who conducted
a bedside examination
of this accused, surprisingly
did not find, "any traces
of bashing or torture".
p.72. Remarkably Dr Kahwahji
found that his answers
and his mental status
were both sound and his
detention during the remaining
period and in particular
his health during that
detention Was without
any remarkable change.
Incidentally, his psychological
status remained calm as
at the initial stages
of the examination when
he was first taken into
custody, as compared to
the sighting of him in
the video when played
before the Court, concerning
his enactment of the scenario.
4.9 The incredulity of
the Judicial Council is
only outdone by their
attempt to belie what
were the facts and circumstances
made in support of the
allegation of torture
and ill treatment. Article
7 of Part III of ICCPR
specifically injuncts
the subjection to torture
or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or
punishment. There was
a gross breach if one
accepts Mr. E1 Khoury's
testimony and the submissions
made by his lawyers who
were both responsible
and admirably competent
in the presentation of
his case. The claim by
the defence was rejected
out of hand by the Court
without any support both
rational and/or logical
relying on any corroborative
material to so disavow
the defence claim.
4.10 It is often asserted
that assaults on the inherent
dignity of human beings
as recognised as being
relevant to the stability
of international order.
It follows that a profound
transformation of international
relations has been heralded
with profound transformation
of International Law,
because ultimately, the
rules of behaviour of
society and the aims in
which they are so regulated
has seen the evolution
of humanitarian law rules
to reduce and eradicate
what occurred to Mr. El
Khoury.
4.11 He is a prisoner
within the term, as has
evolved in International
Law, as a person who is
unable to remove themselves
from the orbit of official
action and abuse. The
concept of torture has
been one which traditionally
is referred to as a method
of arriving at the truth,
of determining responsibility
for offences by means
of eliciting confessions
or other information.
Less obviously, it has
also become a method of
inspiring fear among the
population at large, or
specific segments of it.
In the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, it provides
that:
a). Article 3. Everyone
has the right, liberty
and security of person.
b). Article 5. No one
shall be subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment
or punishment.
c). Article 9. No one
shall be subject to arbitrary
arrest or detention...
4.12 Each of these provisions
was so breached in the
case of Mr. E1 Khoury
and in that regard with
respect to all Defendants
who were in custody.
4.13 Mr. E1 Khoury is
seen as a typical victim
of torture, in other words,
he is a political opponent
of the government - violent
or non-violent, a real
force for change or a
minor irritant to the
regime, seized by the
security forces. These
as in the case in question
may be military or police
(or both acting together)
but will more commonly
be the military, who may
or may not be in uniform.
Their vehicles may or
may not have number plates
and frequently, although
not inevitably, the government
of the State concerned
will have been ousted
unconstitutionally by
the armed forces, which
can then operate free
of restraint. They may
well be there at the grace
and favour of an occupying
force, ever present, but
seemingly benign in its
attendance to supervising
the administration, but
without being seen to
take an active part.
4.14 The scenario as occurred
to Mr. E1 Khoury and for
that matter Dr. Geagea
and Mr. Malek, is both
Composite and consistent
of what occurs generally
in barbaric regimes where
the administration of
justice is nothing more
than a sinecure to the
ultimate aims of the State
and is used as a perfidious
and political panacea
albeit an adjunct as a
piece of panoply.
4.15 Invariably, once
seized, a prisoner is
transported to a place
of detention, which may
be a police station, or
in this case an army barracks
where the torture and
the ill-treatment will
take place unless already
started during the transportation.
The methods are as infinite
as the reaches of the
human imagination, but
among the more common
are prolonged beatings,
especially on the soles
of the feet or genitals,
immersion in excrement,
near-asphyxiation, violent
sexual assault, and the
administering of electrical
shocks. More sophisticated
in that they leave little
physical trace. Under
psychological techniques,
deprivation of light (or
of darkness), deprivation
of sound, of sleep, general
disorientation, threats
of mutilation or death,
mock execution and most
powerful of all, in many
cases, the threat of physical
abuse would be extended
to persons close to the
prisoner.
4.16 Torture is usually
aimed at securing information
about the activities of
the victim, or persons
connected with the victim.
The activities in question
may be thought to relate
to the commission of criminal
offences (with or without
political connections),
or the planned commission
of such offences, or simply
to political dissent that
the authorities are not
prepared to tolerate.
The torture is also often
aimed at securing confessions
to criminal acts. Another
purpose is the intimidation
of the victim and others,
possibly even society
as a whole, so as to deter
people from undertaking
an activity that could
risk their falling into
the hands of the authorities.
4.17 Torture is usually
carried out while the
victim is excluded from
any contact with the outside
world. Family, doctor,
lawyer, and so on - a
condition known as detention
incommunicado. The period
is often prolonged, measured
in weeks and months rather
than in days, (though,
of course, a lot of suffering
maybe inflicted in a period
of days even hours). The
incommunicado detention
may, like the torture
itself, be frankly illegal
under the law of the country
in question. Sometimes
the authorities will facilitate
the perpetration of torture
by declaring a state of
siege or emergency in
order to permit the suspension
of legal guarantees that
could have acted as checks.
4.18 That each of the
above items, as indicia
of a repressive regime
can be applied to the
Lebanese Government is
both apt and sound on
instructions received
by me from refugees presently
situated in Canada, America,
Australia and the United
Kingdom. That I have participated
in such refugee hearings
and prepared a report
which has been accepted
by authorities in Sweden,
Australia and Canada and
have given evidence in
the United Kingdom with
a decision pending, is
confirmatory, sufficient
for me to make the observations
that I do that I accept
what Mr El Khoury has
said and in particular
having spoken to him briefly
and under pain of punishment
on the basis that soldiers
would have if they had
found me so talking to
him, physically removed
me, from the precincts
of the Court, enables
me sufficiently to believe
what his lawyers put on
instructions and also
with respect to the Defendant
himself.
4.19 Analysing the reasons
for the rejection of the
claims made by this accused
by the Court, leads me
to the inevitable conclusion
that the just and rational
approach to justice, objective
and devoid of sympathy
and/or political preference
was not arrived at by
the Court in the consideration
of Mr El Khoury's case.
4.20 To say that he was
motivated by instinct
to survive, the death
penalty and hence make
the confessions he did,
is to answer the obvious,
that under the fear of
execution and the arbitrary
denial of just and due
process together with
the physical and mental
torture exacted on him,
was the real motive for
the confessions initially,
and then their retraction.
Why otherwise would he
be so prepared to retract
a confession that would
enable and assure him
of his preservation of
life and possible early
restoration of liberty?
To so publicly decry the
confession as obtained
by torture and fraud is
to fly in the face of
logic and reason other
than it was both a false
and wrongly obtained confession.
4.21 To display him as
a spy for both Israel
and the Lebanese Forces,
and thus an enemy of the
State is only to appease
the political politburo
and to become a proselyte
of regimes that occupy
Lebanon and seek to have
Lebanon bend to their
will in contra distinction
to their acclaimed sovereign
status and democratic
ideals. It indeed makes
hollow and a mockery of
the remarks of the Judicial
Council that Lebanon is
both free and democratic
where a just and fair
trial is available to
all who Come before the
Courts. See p. 6.
4.22 The Court certainly
gave some emphasis and
placed a degree of focus
on the motive for retracting
his confession at p. 79.
It is to be noted that
Mr E1 Khoury's confession
was retracted on the first
opportunity after the
Indictment Decree handed
down on 13 June 1994,
and prior to him being
a witness in the hearing
of an associated case
which was to commence
on 23 June 1994, in relation
to the bombing of a building
known as A1 Kataeb House.
That it was prompt and
that he was consistent
in denouncing the confession
cannot be argued with.
That the Judicial Council
did not give such emphasis
and consider such retraction
on other than a nonsensical
basis, is also apparent.
In short, their ultimate
conclusion was as follows:
"The Council remained
confident that Girges'
confessions in regard
to the main points of
the case were true and
that these confessions
with its supportive elements
are enough to prove the
actions attributed to
Girges, which appear in
the Chapter of Facts."
P.80
Those facts were his complicity
as an agent of enemies
both within and outside
the State and the fact
that he took money for
his intelligence service
and was prepared to denounce
the State and act against
it. All ethereal and fanciful
and more particularly
obnoxious to the cause
of attaining justice as
was incumbent on the Judicial
Council.
4.23 When the template
of his conspiratorial
co-operation and the acts
in furtherance of the
conspiracy and the perpetration
of the matters in question
are taken into account
and in particular looked
at as regards the co-ordination
between him and the accused
in absentia and their
defences are also under
the microscope, it is
patently obvious that
the following propositions
are available:
i) He could not have been
with the co-accused, especially
those in absentia on the
days and in the periods
in question or at the
locations;
ii) That if he so maintained
it, bearing in mind that
he was taken into detention,
it was in circumstances
where he was and is to
be regarded as a victim
of a miscarriage of justice
on the basis that the
confession obtained from
him was and should be
seen for what it was,
namely, no confession
at all, or certainly not
voluntarily given;
iii) That there is both
a reasonable and rationale
explanation for the confession
and its extraction, and
this in turn leads to
a doubt when compared
to the lack of presence
of the co-accused as against
the intimately particular
and meticulous narration
of their involvement and
presence, plausibly explained
away by reason of the
extraction of the confession
-thus leaving inevitably
the conclusion that the
doubt must be not only
in favour of this accused,
but his co-accused, including
Dr. Geagea and Mr. Malek,
and the accused in absentia.
4.24 The Judicial Council
in failing to appreciate
the Process and in failing
to accord to the affidavit
material the force and
the tenor on which they
were sworn have denied
this accused the ability
to present his defence
and thereby denied him
a fair and just trial
and insofar as their verdict
is incapable of review
by a High Court in breach
of article 14 (5) of ICCPR
has rendered the verdict
unsafe and unsatisfactory
for the reason that it
was so unsafe and so unsatisfactory
in being arrived at and
insofar as it is allowed
to remain so by the denial
of a review of a appellate
authority is equally offensive
to the notions of justice
and the international
obligations to which Lebanon
is a signatory.
5.0 ACCUSED IN ABSENTIA
5.1 The accused in absentia
are Jean Chahine, Antonios
Obeid and Rushdi Raad
and the A1 Fahel brothers.
5.2 Affidavit evidence
was presented and compiled
by myself in respect of
Obeid and Chahine and
representations were made
on behalf of Al Fahel
in Sweden and I also liaised
with Rushdi Raad's lawyers
in Canada and he himself
personally as to the preparation
of affidavit material
by him and its provision
to the judicial authorities
and the prosecution in
Lebanon.
5.3 That the dissemination
of the material was both
universal, that is to
both the State and prosecutor
and to each of the other
Defendants and that it
was open, as confirmatory
with corroborative material
annexed thereto is to
underestimate the extent
to which the preparations
were made and attended
to in the provision of
the material in question.
This is in no way, in
any sense to justify the
material or the manner
or the state of it as
presented, but rather
to indicate that what
was made available was
done with the best possible
resources co-ordinated
and provided bearing in
mind there were time constraints
in the provision of this
material and its consideration.
5.4 The Judicial Council's
complaint that no one
came to support the affidavit
material is absurd for
these reasons:
a) Insofar as I was concerned,
I was denied and still
am denied a visa to attend
and visit Lebanon for
any purpose, so how could
I having applied for a
visa in March 1995 and
still have unanswered
my application for such
a visa (although I am
informed and verily believe
on reliable sources that
the same is denied to
me as I am on a black
list and in fact am referred
to as No. 3 on that list).
How could I hope to attend
and participate in the
forensic process?
b) The treatment afforded
to Obeid and Chahine by
the deprivation of their
passports and the ill-treatment
afforded to their co-accused,
would leave them with
no hope or without any
degree of optimism that
they would not also be
treated in a like manner
must of itself weigh on
their minds as to why
they would not seek to
surrender themselves,
and;
c) The treatment of the
affidavit material in
the judgment and in particular
the conscious disregard
to refer to the itemisation
of the matters in the
affidavit, to so regard
it as, if not directly
then inferentially as
a fraud, and to denounce
the material without referring
to it in particular manner
but to generally disclaim
it as opposed to the meticulous
treatment of the prosecution's
evidence, is to highlight
the dishonesty that permeated
the judicial approach
and ultimate conclusion
that was arrived at.
5.5 It is apparent in
the course of the judgment
that all defendants in
absentia were regarded
as one category and so
treated in the judgment.
The "infamous three" -
Obeid, Raad and Chahine
were all regarded as escapees
from justice and it was
held against them that
as they had not seen fit
to discuss or offer an
opportunity for the discussion
of their evidence with
the authorities then they
would be tried in their
absence. Needless to say
it was akin to the vernacular
expression, "shooting
fish in a barrel" It had
all of the trappings of
what we refer to in Australia
as a "Kangaroo Court".
It was both a farce and
a mockery and constituted
nothing more than a rubber
stamp insofar as they
were convicted.
5.6 Of special interest
and when read and reflected
on in utter disbelief,
is the comment and the
finding of the Court at
page 85, where it held
that the fact that there
were no exits visas in
the relevant passports
meant, that that of itself
did not mean that false
passports were used or
that the countries in
question were not efficient
enough in maintaining
exit records. The Republic
of Cyprus, and the situation
pertaining in Canada,
Sweden and Australia are
sufficient to my knowledge
to indicate that the migration
and immigration procedures
are so monitored and of
such sophistication that
the obtaining of a false
passport, whilst not out
of the question, would
make it virtually impossible
for either of these defendants.
More particularly, the
records of the governments
in question, and when
one utilises reference
to the affidavits in question
for each of the clients
that I was privy to, it
is patently obvious that
the reference by the Judicial
Council that, "both cases
could not constitute a
definite evidence that
the person has actually
remained in that country,
because of his passport
and the stamps appearing
on it." - P.85. It is
regrettable that judicial
expositions of this nature
are needed to, to resort
to imposing a decision
that is neither based
in logic nor reason. Equally
to the point that nowhere
in the affidavit material
is any fact or matter
addressed concerning the
issues such as Mr Chahine
residing in a unit in
Cyprus and the further
affidavit by his landlord,
confirming the same. Likewise
with Mr Raad, running
a business in Canada and
Mr Obeid conducting transactions
in Australia, significantly,
buying a home, attending
doctors and generally
being in and with his
family, having entered
Australia in June 1993
and not having gone from
its shores. How then does
the Judicial Council explain
that the persons abroad
remained unreliable evidence
when either for reasons
of their personal safety
or in my case the fact
that I was not able to
be given a visa, all render
the matter of the need
for attendance hypocritical
where it is relied on
for the need to give evidence
viva voce.
5.7 The percolation of
this denial and rejection
of the alibi material
in relation to the persons
referred to is equally
seen in the rejection
of it in Mr E1 Khoury's
defence. The Court was
adamant that it would
rely on what had been
reported in Mr. E1 Khoury's
confessions against the
defendants, as long as
the confessions were convincing
in their details. To be
convincing is one thing
To be coerced and lacking
in corroboration is another
and this was not averted
to by the Court, rather
they held the view that:
"...[it] consolidated
by the factual evidence
derived from the past
dealings amongst them
all" - P.86.
5.8 In the circumstances
it is absolutely imperative
that in any review of
the verdicts against the
gentlemen concerned in
this section of my report,
it must be noted that
no opportunity was given
nor any gesture made to
take the evidence on commission
or alternately to have
whatever I collected and
collated tested by an
opportunity for me to
give evidence and to be
cross-examined on the
same, or to make an independent
investigation of the materials
through consulate officials
in the various countries
concerned. To dismiss
the matters on the basis
that if one were not to
attend, irrespective of
whether one could physically
be able to go to the Court,
is to yet again conveniently
remove from serious consideration
the matters at hand. In
all it was a gross miscarriage
of justice and against
evidence which must render
the verdict unsafe and
unsatisfactory as applies
to each of these persons.
6.0
SAMIR GEAGEA
6.1 The position of this
Defendant is that he was
acquitted of the capital
charge, but convicted
of firearm offences and
sentenced to ten years
in prison. It was utterly
unbelievable, bearing
in mind that the odds
were against this defendant
securing an acquittal
and especially when one
reads the balance of the
judgment as to how the
other defendants: were
treated if he was at the
apex and they were serving
underneath him.
6.2 Reliance was had by
the Judicial Council on
the establishment of what
they refer to as a sham
party. It was seen as
a political subterfuge
to establish a party which
despite being pronounced
as established for political
purposes, was in reality
the old militia but hid
by the penumbra of a political
party. It was alleged
that Geagea paid wages,
kept staff on and conducted
the security apparatus
with Mr. Touma. Mr. Touma,
I am informed and verily
believe, was in America,
and had been for some
time.
6.3 The evidence continued
to establish and ultimately
lead for consideration
by the Court that Geagea
had collaborated in and
actively counselled and/or
procured the accumulation
of weapons, in line with
the Lebanese Forces Party
which in turn was a cover
for the Lebanese Forces.
As well there were active
training programs in intelligence,
mapping, and weapons operation.
There was a cover set-up
allegedly as a scout group,
known as, Al Moustakbal
Scouts, as well as the
running of the Ghosta
Military Academy.
6.4 Generally the Court
looked at each of the
matters that it referred
to earlier in respect
of Mr. Khoury and the
other defendants grouped
and discussed above, but
came to a conclusion that
even though the Church
bombing was an operation
which was an organised
crime, which would have
had commanders, planners,
and those who would ultimately
execute it, Dr. Geagea's
participation therein
was not as integral or
as principally positioned
as was first thought.
While it is conceded in
the Judgment that he made
capital of the bombing
and would have used the
opportunity presented
by it, it is important
to note that prior to
the bombing of the Church,
Dr Geagea had not come
under any suspicion for
any of the crimes that
he has been previously
tried with, or is currently
standing trial for. And
yet the Church was the
catalyst that led to his
incarceration and to the
determination of matters
which one would have thought
were covered by a general
amnesty. It is important
in this regard to note
that at the time of writing
this opinion and analyse
of the case at hand, one
of the former prosecutors
has conceded that the
trials given to Dr. Geagea
in the past were far from
fair and he has publicly
apologised and indicated
that he no longer wishes
to be identified with
the States legal team.
I refer to the press conference
of Mr. Rizk, which I understand
has been disseminated
to various organisations
and a copy of which will
be made available to those
who having read this report
could access it at the
same time.
6.5 Ultimately the Court
gave to Dr. Geagea the
benefit of the doubt on
the basis that whilst
there were planners and
organisers of the bombing
operation they could not
give any certain role
to Samir Geagea neither
in co-ordinating nor in
planning and executing
the operation. Ultimately
they came to the conclusion
that: "As a result, Council
has doubts about the participation
of the defendant, Samir
Geagea in the Church bombing
operation. These doubts
should benefit the defendant
and lead to the declaration
of his innocence."
6.6 However, such doubts
did not arise when it
came to the amassing of
weapons and the conducting
of sham political party
which was a disguise for
the continuation of the
militia. This to my mind
is a contradiction in
terms, where the evidence
is preferred for one conclusion
but not the other, when
they are both equally
capable of the logical
conclusion that bears
uniformity in the innocence
of the alleged perpetrator
as opposed to his conviction
on one and acquittal on
the other. Why is it not
that the doubts that existed
for the denial and ultimate
acquittal of Dr. Geagea
in the Church bombing,
also remain the same for
the possession of weapons,
conduct of a militia and
the various other matters
that were seen fit to
render him liable, when
in fact and in substance,
the evidence was sufficiently
incomprehensible and unconvincing
to allow an acquittal?
One can only say that
the answer lies in the
genesis of the trial being
one of a political witch
hunt and ultimately a
conviction on a lesser
charge and the acquittal
on the main charge, will
both, (hopefully), place
the prosecution and the
Judicial Council in a
benign and seemingly just
light, as opposed to the
calamitous catastrophe
resulting in the gross
miscarriage of justice
that has occurred.
6.7 In reality the verdict
was both unsafe and unsatisfactory
for Dr. Geagea on the
very critical basis that
leaving aside the absurd
conviction of the other
defendants in the face
of their overwhelming
alibi evidence and the
fact that E1 Khoury's
conviction was tainted
by his confession and
should similarly have
been rejected, the conviction
of Dr. Geagea has massive
and mammoth implications
akin to the "Guilford
Six" and "Birmingham Four"
- UK. This occurred in
a regime which is judicially
far better organised with
much more safeguards and
entrenched Appellate review;
and still was overturned
as being found to be procured
in circumstances which
rendered it unsafe and
unsatisfactory. Here in
stark contrast there is
no such recourse to any
review procedure either
Appellate or independent
thereof and for these
reasons the procedure
stands damned as being
in gross violation of
article 14(5) of the ICCPR.
6.8 Nothing further need
be entered into to discuss
what is already well and
truly fallowed turf. It
remains to be said though
that even with organisations
that are loathe to embark
upon and enter into matters
which have been the subject
of domestic remedies and
conducted by legal systems
within those domestic
forums, here there was
such a gross departure
from what was the minimum
required, pursuant to
article 14(5) of the ICCPR
that it requires close
and careful scrutiny and
sustained protest. Accordingly,
this report should be
disseminated to organisations
who have been receptive
and for which the writer
has been extremely grateful
such as Amnesty International,
the Human Rights Committee
of the Congress of the
United States, the European
Union Human Rights Commission
and of course to the particular
governments of Australia,
Cyprus, the United States,
Canada, Sweden and the
United Kingdom, who have
patiently and properly
received the reports for
their own international
advices but which would
not cause any redress
for the parties concerned.
6.9 Of special interest,
this report is in part
dedicated to all of those
people who have assisted
me from the Lebanese Forces
and the political wing
of that party and in particular
to Mrs. Samir Geagea and
all of Dr. Geagea's workers
throughout the world who
actively campaign and
properly organise themselves
for the attainment of
peace and justice by lawful
means, as opposed to resorting
to activities which would
belie the respect for
the system of law and
order that Dr. Geagea
maintains and holds firm.
Of special interest and
the recognition of that
interest this report is
equally dedicated to His
Beatitude Cardinal Boutros
Nasrallah Sfeir whose
campaign for truth and
justice in the name of
God and the Maronite Church
is especially warmly regarded
and acknowledged in his
tireless efforts and campaign
on behalf of all Lebanese
citizens for democracy
and just government.
20 November 1996
STEPHEN J. STANTON
G. Geagea. PAP
|
|
|
|
|
