press conference on international independent investigation commission for lebanon

The International Independent Investigation Commission for Lebanon would issue no “indictments of convenience”, Commissioner Daniel Bellemare said today, adding that, while there may be political fallout from future decisions of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, over which he would preside next year, he would remain neutral and apolitical.

At a Headquarters press conference, Mr. Bellemare said he would make indictments as Prosecutor of the Special Tribunal only if he was “satisfied legally” of evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as stipulated by the Tribunal’s statute.  “This is a non-political exercise.  This is a legal process driven by legal rules.”  Public confidence in the process was very important, and the Commission sought the media’s help to ensure that confidence by providing accurate information that would inform decision-making.

As head of the Beirut-based Commission probing the terrorist bombing that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and others on 14 February 2005, Mr. Bellemare will take up his duties as Prosecutor of the Hague-based Special Tribunal on 1 March with a mandate to indict those responsible.  Security Council resolution 1857 (2007) outlines the terms of the Tribunal’s creation.

Responding to questions, Mr. Bellemare said that within two months of its start on 1 March, the Tribunal must request the Lebanese authorities to transfer the Hariri file to The Hague, where the Tribunal would take jurisdiction over it.  The Hariri case was the only one over which the Tribunal would take immediate jurisdiction.  With the request for the file transfer, any people charged in the Hariri case would also be transferred, according to article 4.2 of the Tribunal’s statute.  Lebanese substantive law -- encompassing charges against an individual and any “constitutive elements” of those charges -- would apply.  The procedure for applying that law would be determined according to the Tribunal’s rules of evidence and of procedure.  There was, therefore, a dual approach between Lebanese law and the international rule of the Tribunal.

Providing context as to where the process stood, he said that jurisdiction over any detainees at present lay exclusively with the Lebanese authorities, adding that the Lebanese judiciary was sovereign, as it should be.  The investigation in relation to any of those detained was ongoing.  The Commission’s primary contact in the judiciary was the Prosecutor General, the “supreme authority” in Lebanon, and that relationship must be based on trust, which in turn rested on the confidentiality of their discussions.

A new element was that, with their transfer to The Hague, the detainees would have a new forum before which to seek remedies, he said.  A motion would be made for their release and the Court would then make a determination.  The Lebanese authorities had exclusive jurisdiction over them until the file was transferred to the Tribunal, but once transferred, jurisdiction shifted to the Tribunal.

Although he could not reveal what was in the file, the Commissioner said he was “cautiously optimistic that we will break the case”.  At the same time, the process could not go any faster and there was a need for patience in allowing the investigation to move forward.

Asked whether there was a relationship between that transfer and indictment, he said there was not; indictments would be presented to the pre-trial judge for confirmation, once he was satisfied there was sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In response to a question about communication with his predecessors, Mr. Bellemare said he had had contacts with former chief investigator Detlev Mehlis and reviewed all the material gathered by those who had preceded him -- which was all the information available.  “I can dictate the pace of the investigation, but I cannot dictate the outcome.”  The evidence must support an indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Asked about the fear among Lebanese that the investigation would be politicized, he replied that he would be guided only by evidence and facts.  “There is no politicization of the Tribunal.”  While the decision to create the Tribunal might have been a political one, the outcome was not political.  It would produce a legal response, solely driven by the facts and evidence available.

In response to a question as to whether Lebanese law distinguished between the crimes of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, he said there was indeed a distinction.

Asked about paragraph 48 of his eleventh report, and why recommendations relating to detained generals had not been made public, he reiterated that his relationship with Prosecutor General Said Mirza, with whom he had shared his views, was based on confidentiality.  As soon as the detainees were transferred to The Hague, motions would be made in a timely fashion.

Responding to a question as to whether Mr. Mehlis had slowed the investigation, he said the circumstances under which the former Chief Investigator had worked were different from those of today, adding:  “It’s very dangerous to try to compare apples to oranges.”

As for the part of his report dealing with financial investigation, he said it was often useful to pursue the financing of any supposed terrorist acts, and he was looking into the financing of the 2005 attacks.

In response to a question as to when he expected trials to start, he said he did not have any dates.  “You cannot start a trial until and unless an investigation is completed.”  As soon as he was in a position to move forward with an indictment, he would do so.

Asked whether part of his team would remain in Beirut, he said his entire team would be with him in The Hague.  There would be a “very small” sub-office in Beirut to facilitate liaison, but as of 1 March, the investigation would be led from The Hague.

In response to a final question, he said the Tribunal would acquire automatic jurisdiction over the Hariri file, but not over others, which remained with the Lebanese authorities.  They would be transferred to the Tribunal only if “connectivity” could be established.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record