2LT International News

THE HAGUE – Headlines were emblazoned around the world last week to deliver the news that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon had found a supporter of Hezbollah guilty of participating in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, and twenty-one others.

The inference was that Hezbollah was somehow involved.

The Washington Examiner went a step further. “Lebanese Hezbollah gets absurd acquittal in Rafic Hariri assassination trial,” the newspaper’s headline said.

Most stories however conveyed that the five judges of the Trial Chamber determined that there was no evidence that Hezbollah or its leadership was responsible for the suicide bombing that killed Mr Hariri and the others, and wounded 226 people.

The tribunal found there was political tension at the time and that international powers a few months earlier had passed a resolution at the United Nations, Resolution 1159, which called for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon and the disbanding of armed militias.

The tribunal found Mr Hariri did not publicly support UN Security Council resolution 1559.

It also found Mr Hariri and Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah had good relations in the years immediately before his death and were meeting regularly.

“Mr Hariri believed that Hezbollah’s militia should be disarmed, at the very least, when peace with Israel was achieved,” the judgement said.

The findings included that the accused were Hezbollah supporters.

They also found Mr Mustafa Badreddine was a senior Hezbollah military official, however the tribunal found him not guilty on all counts, clearing him of any involvement in the assassination. This finding did not have to be made. Mr Badreddine was not on trial. All charges against him were dropped in 2016 when he was reportedly killed in Syria.

Nor was there any requirement for the tribunal to make a finding about Hezbollah not being involved. It clearly chose to do so.

It also found there was no direct evidence that Syria had been involved.

Almost all of the evidence against the four accused related to cell phone data and expert testimony attempting to place the men at places and times where Mr Hariri’s convoy was travelling. The tribunal found while some of the accused may have been involved in the surveillance of Mr Hariri, there were “others” that had him under surveillance as well, including the Lebanese security services.

They also found “The attack involved an RDX-based explosive. Some witnesses observed that ‘RDX is so powerful that it is most suitable for military purposes’. From this, it may be concluded that those responsible for co-ordinating the attack had access to what could be described as ‘military-grade explosives.’

The Trial Chamber also found the assassination of Mr Hariri was not all the perpetrators were seeking. Because of the amount of explosives used, 2500kg to 3,00kg of TNT-equivalent, it was intended to ensure a significant number of casualties, a large scale loss of life; it was designed to cause panic and to spread fear, and to destabilize the country. No amount of rationalizing could lead to Hezbollah, or for that matter Syria, to want to achieve such an outcome.

It was inevitable Syria would be blamed in any event, as it was, and this gave the impetus for the enforcement of Resolution 1559.

Emile Aoun, one of the attorneys appointed by the court to defend Salim Ayyash in absentia who was found guilty by the trial chamber of the Special Tribunal for his part in the assassination, in his summing up pointed to evidence during the trial that Hezbollah’s leader enjoyed a special relationship with Hariri, which again defies why Hezbollah would have any reason to want to take him out.

It should be noted throughout the trial the prosecutor did not seek to implicate Hezbollah, but in his summing up he referred to a political organization being behind the plot. This was, defence counsel argued, to attempt to address the motivation aspect of their clients. It was clear none of the accused individuals had any personal interest in Mr Hariri’s murder and the cataclysmic blast that took place, so the theory was they must have been doing it on someone’s instructions.

“The Prosecution mentioned in its final brief for the first time that Prime Minister Hariri was killed by the party supporting Syria, particularly Hezbollah, in order to maintain and preserve the status quo,” Mr Auon said.

The court was also told when the Hezbollah leader’s son Hadi was killed in an Israeli Navy commando operation in 1997 and his body was taken by IDF soldiers, it was Mr Hariri who successfully negotiated with Israel for the return of his son’s body.

“We have shown in our final brief that the relationship between Prime Minister Hariri and Hassan Nasrallah was special at the personal and political levels. The two men respected one another deeply.”

“Prime Minister Hariri had insisted to participate personally in the negotiations that led to recovering the body of martyr Hadi Hassan Nasrallah. While Prime Minister Hariri visited the southern suburbs of Beirut, or Dahyieh, to meet with Mr. Nasrallah, particularly prior to the assassination, he did it without the usual level of security detail that accompanied him usually because he trusted the security of Hezbollah,” the defence lawyer said.

“And the reference is the testimony of Mustafa Nasser, transcript of the hearing of 10 April 2015, transcript number 138, page10. And didn’t Prime Minister Hariri tell Sayyed Nasrallah that if he wins in the elections, this proves that the weapons of the Resistance didn’t Prime Minister Hariri tell Sayyed Nasrallah that if he wins in the elections, this will prove that the Resistance weapons would remain as a legitimate weapon, for him personally and for his government, until the last minute and until a peace agreement is reached and signed with Israel.”

“With regards to Resolution 1559, didn’t Prime Minister Hariri say that he would be willing to cut off his fingers before signing of the deed of sale for the Resistance, before letting go of the Resistance, and he was one of the first Resistance when he was a child,” Auon said.

“When he was in Dubai on the 14th of December, 2004, he said that there was no contention, no argument regarding Hezbollah and the Resistance. He said that this was not a topic of discussion, and there was no internal discussion and disagreement regarding Hezbollah.”

Judge Braidy at this stage intervened, asking: “Was this mentioned in the statement and testimony of Mr. Nasser and in newspapers? What is the reference? Can you mention the reference to us?”

Mr Aoun responded: “Regarding the weapons of the Resistance, that was mentioned in the testimony of Mustafa Nasser, and the reference is the hearing of 9 April 2015, transcript 137, page 71 and 1685. With regards to what was said by Mr. Hariri in Dubai on the 14th of December, 2004, the reference is Exhibit P303, and the ERN number is D0004870. Therefore, and after the aforementioned, I would like to ask the Prosecution how could Prime Minister Hariri be considered to be a threat to Hezbollah and the status quo in 2005?”

“In conclusion, all of this political evidence presented by the Prosecution lacks any material evidence regarding Hezbollah’s motive or Interpretation serves to facilitate communication. Only the original speech is authentic. Syria’s motive to killing Hariri. Instead, the evidence shows that there was a cordial relationship and cooperation between Prime Minister Hariri and Hassan Nasrallah, and shows that there was a dialogue with Syria regarding a variety of issues. Whereas the relationship with Syria had its ups and downs, however, we cannot say that the relationship supported the allegations mentioned regarding the non-personal motive for killing Hariri.”

“In conclusion, and I would like here to divert a little bit, with regards to the accusations of Hezbollah of terrorism,” Aoun told the Trial Chamber, “I would like you to listen carefully. The Prosecution cannot accuse Hezbollah of terrorism, directly or indirectly. No prosecutor, no telecom expert, no head of state, even a narcissistic one, can do that because Hezbollah, in two words, is the emblem of the Resistance, whether we like it or not, and they are a school that teaches any occupant. Yes, Hezbollah can become a terrorist once again if we go back and change history, on the condition that we transform Winston Churchill into a terrorist, and Charles de Gaulle as a terrorist, and then Gamal Abdel Nasser is considered a terrorist, and Michel Aoun is also considered a terrorist.”

Related stories:

Hariri assassination an attempt to destabilize Lebanon and spread fear

Hezbollah unlikely to be implicated in Hariri assassination findings