By Niamh Fleming-Farrell
BEIRUT: Outrage, condemnation and the initiation of contempt proceedings have characterized the past month at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon following the latest publication of an alleged confidential witness list.
But as the STL press office repeatedly tells media outlets to not assume the published list is a leak, and as the court awaits the appointment of an independent investigator to examine whether contempt charges can be brought against those responsible for publishing the list, the question remains as to how the names and details of the alleged witnesses originated.
Three theories appear to be viable: The list was indeed leaked; it was stolen at one point; or the names were either completely or partially fabricated.
The first theory appears to be the most plausible explanation, according to sources familiar with the issue.
When Al-Akhbar newspaper published the witness’ details on Jan. 15, the daily described the information as “leaked,” however the method by which hackers obtained a similar list, which was posted on the website of AlMustaqbal newspaper on April 9, was not revealed.
Instead, the hackers provided a link to another website called “Journalists for the Truth,” which has since been taken offline, with the list published under the title “Secret witnesses in the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (Group #1).”
According to various sources, that the list was leaked from within the STL seems like the most plausible way by which the so-called confidential witness information entered the public domain.
“If I had to speculate on the rumors,” said academic and political commentator Elias Muhanna, “I’d say that the theft and fabrication theories are least plausible to me. ... With an investigation that has gone on as long as this one, with so many people involved, intelligence agencies, diplomats and local police, it seems inevitable that information would eventually leak.”
In 2009, the STL took over the inquiry into the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and related attacks from its predecessor, the United Nations International Independent Investigative Commission. Over the eight years since Hariri’s death, hundreds of people have worked on the investigation, which in turn has interviewed thousands.
Although the STL has stated that the most recently published witness list on the Al-Mustaqbal website is inaccurate, in the past leaked information, published in local and international news outlets, was proven accurate.
A Lebanon-based source close to the STL defense, speaking on condition of anonymity, dismisses the notion that the witness lists are informed fabrications.
The source claims that while none of the published lists names all of the 557 witnesses included in the confidential list the prosecution filed with the court in November last year, the lists offer too much detail to be a fabrication, as some included the content of witness testimonies.
The source argues that the repeated appearance of so-called witness lists “means that the STL has no effective protection system.”
Referencing previous leaks, the source recommends that “[STL president] David Baragwanath initiate ... a strong inquiry [within the STL].”
Although the court has announced it will appoint an independent investigator to probe the three incidents in which lists were published, on the grounds that they may interfere with its work, it has not clarified what the scope of this investigation will be.
The STL has, however, repeatedly stated the importance of keeping witness information confidential and emphasized the intimidation resulting from publishing the so-called lists negatively affects their work.
Asked about the methods it uses to protect confidential information, the STL told The Daily Star that it “employs a list of internal measures,” but declined to disclose their exact nature. However, the tribunal did explain how it goes about classifying documents.
There are four classification levels at the STL for documents filed to the court, and successive levels place additional barriers to access.
The party that files the documents determines how it will be classified. In the case of the witness lists, the filing party was the prosecution. The court’s judges can modify the classification.
When the prosecution filed the witness list last November, it classified the document as “confidential,” which is the second classification level, the first being “public” documents.
A “confidential” classification effectively means that though the document cannot be disclosed to the public, it can be made available in both hard copy and electronic format to all of the court’s bodies.
The court did not reveal how many individuals would have access to the witness list under this classification.
Filings that are marked “confidential and ex parte,” or “under seal and ex parte with limited distribution,” are less accessible. The former is available in electronic and hard copy formats to a limited number of parties within the court, with the latter being available in hardy copy only to the relevant judge, the president and the registrar.
The prosecution confidentially filed its witness list, along with its pretrial brief and its exhibit list on Nov. 15, and as required by the court’s rules these documents were disclosed to the defense counsel. A public redacted version of the filing was issued, naturally excluding the witness details.
The court also pointed out to The Daily Star that the prosecution’s witness lists are not final, and can be subject to change, with the possibility that names can be removed or added before trial.
The tribunal declined to further comment on the nature or management of the list, although it said that “in order to better guarantee the security of those individuals included in the witness list, it is of paramount importance to keep the list confidential.”
There is one known theft of information from the STL. On Nov. 27, 2010, a briefcase was stolen from representatives of the court in Beirut’s southern suburbs.
It is noteworthy that when asked if this incident compromised witness details, the court replied: “It is not possible to state the nature of information that was stolen in Beirut on Oct. 27, 2010,” adding, “the contempt judge ordered the appointment of an amicus investigator who will be designated by the registrar in due course.”
The court would not be drawn further on what role, if any, the investigator would play in probing the theft.
Copyrights 2011, The Daily Star - All Rights Reserved
13/05/2013
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2013/May-13/216844-stl-list-leaked-stolen-or-fabricated.ashx#axzz2T9x8DI00
