Defense lawyers slammed the prosecution for selectively presenting evidence that relies on few concrete facts
Defense attorneys hammered away at the prosecution’s case against their clients on the third day of trial before the Special Tribunal for Lebanon on Monday. Lawyers for only two of the accused gave opening statements, but both highlighted what they called a lack of specific, concrete evidence against their clients.
Counsel for Mustafa Badreddine and Hussein Oneissi revealed that part of their strategy to defend their clients will focus on the avenues of investigation not pursued by the prosecution to find the perpetrators of the February 14, 2005, car bomb in Beirut that killed former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri along with 21 other people and injured 226 others.
The prosecution argues that five members of Hezbollah – along with still unidentified others – participated in the 2005 attack. The trial against Badreddine, Oneissi, Assad Sabra and Salim Ayyash began on January 16. Currently, the fifth accused – Hassan Merhi – was indicted separately. The court is currently considering whether or not to join the two cases.
Antoine Korkmaz, lead counsel for Badreddine, described the prosecutor’s indictment against Badreddine, Oneissi, Sabra and Ayyash as a “whole series of pieces of evidence, like pieces of a puzzle” that allegedly fit together to bolster the “theory [the prosecution] wants to support.” However, he added, the prosecution did not explore all available options to find the true perpetrators of the crime.
For example, he said, the prosecution will call two Argentinian expert witnesses to testify that the bomb was contained in a van and set off by a suicide bomber. Korkmaz noted, however, these experts investigated an earlier bombing in Argentina later blamed on Hezbollah.
It is “as if the expert reports were drafted to confirm” the prosecutor’s suspicion, Korkmaz said, before disputing the prosecution’s suicide-bomber theory by asserting, “it would appear this must have been an underground explosion.”
Vincent Courcelle-Labrousse, lead counsel for Oniessi, stressed that, in his indictment, the prosecutor is only presenting facts “he has chosen,” facts “he has selected.” Addressing the tribunal’s judges, he said the prosecutor will “lead you from inference to inference” by “leaps and bounds” using “virtual evidence” instead of undeniable facts.
Korkmaz noted that while the prosecution showed stills from closed circuit television depicting a white van moving near the crime scene the day of the explosion, the van was off camera at the moment it allegedly exploded. Further, he said the prosecution maintains there must have been a person in place near the crime scene to act as a lookout, responsible for signaling to the van when to move into place before the bombing.
However, he said, “no one has found any signs of the presence of a lookout.”
Korkmaz said the prosecution has “no actual evidence” against his client.
Courcelle-Labrousse also blasted the prosecution for not presenting a motive as to why the accused allegedly took part in the crime.
“You have a case with no criminal motive,” he said. “A conspiracy without the accused being ascribed a reason to conspire.”
Defense lawyers are not legally required to offer an explanation as to whom they believe committed the crime, and the attorneys who spoke Monday did not indicate they would. However, both Korkmaz and Courcelle-Labrousse came back repeatedly to the idea that the prosecution did not explore all available options when trying to find the guilty parties.
Korkmaz even said that, at trial, he would “reveal the suspicious origins of some of these documents,” the prosecution will rely on at trial, without being more specific.
Courcelle-Labrousse, stressing the technical nature of the prosecution’s evidence as opposed to a wealth of witness statements, worried the trial may become a “battle of experts.” He also said the prosecution engaged in a “systematic” effort to block defense attorneys’ access to information in his own case file.
“Guilt has not been established by the prosecution,” he said. “Be prepared for that truth.”
Yasser Hassan, co-counsel for Oneissi, focused on what he called a “strategy aimed at hindering” the defense employed by the prosecution. He said the prosecution disclosed information to the defense in batches over time, often withdrawing or adding evidence later on. Further, he said, the prosecution disclosed the case file complied by Lebanese investigators prior to international intervention in the case in a piecemeal manner and not in chronological order.
“As if they were telling us, ‘You have to look at these facts in a certain manner,’” he said.
Hassan also questioned the tribunal’s legitimacy – although the courtalready ruled that it has a legal right to exist and try this case – and wondered why other crimes in Lebanon did not prompt the creation of international tribunals.
“We believe in justice for all,” not only the victims of the February 14, 2005, attack, he said.
Hassan added that certain witnesses who may know may have known much about the crime – namely Assaf Shawkat, who was head of Syrian Military Intelligence at the time of the attack, Jamaa Jamaa, who was the assistant to Syrian Military Intelligence in Beirut at the time of the attack, and Wissam al-Hassan, who was head of Hariri’s personal security the day of the attack – have since been killed. He said that al-Qaeda took responsibility for killing Shawkat and Jamaa.
“Is anyone whipping out some of the evidence,” he asked rhetorically.
Additionally, Hassan questioned why the prosecutor mentioned the four accused support Hezbollah in his indictment. If the prosecutor wanted to indict Hezbollah, he said, the prosecutor should do so. That said, Hassan noted the prosecution did not mention Hezbollah during its opening statements, but rather, as was mentioned in the indictment also, identified each accused as a Shiite Muslim.
Hassan asked if any other international tribunals have referred to the religion of those accused.
“I wonder if religion is considered part of the crime committed,” he asked.
Following the last day of opening statements, the tribunal adjourned until Wednesday morning, when the prosecution will begin presenting evidence to support its case.
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/stl-updates/531399-defense-at-stl-a-case-with-no-criminal-motive
