3/6/2018 Still waiting for the truth now.mmedia.me N O W & Z A H R A H A N K I R Published: 6/01/2008 07:31 AM Still waiting for the truth Billboards scattered around Beirut display the scene of destruction at the site of the bomb that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Accompanying these blurry images are the hopeful words “rah titwaddah il soura” (“the picture will become clear”). But three years, nine reports and three chief prosecutors later, the country remains none the wiser, and the picture is certainly no clearer. Nonetheless, the process of justice seems to be moving forward. In late December, the United Nations and the government of the Netherlands finalized an agreement to host the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in The Hague. Preparations will begin early this year, with the first trials expected to commence in 2009. Meanwhile, back in Beirut, major changes in the investigation team are afoot. On the last day of 2007, Serge Brammertz stepped down as commissioner of the United Nations International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC). In late November, Brammertz his final report to the UN Security Council. The Belgian-born prosecutor’s report did not identify any suspects by name or produce any significant additions to the eight previous reports. The preceding week, the Lebanese daily As-Safir reported that names would in fact be disclosed, causing a media frenzy. https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentary/still_waiting_for_the_truth 1/4 3/6/2018 Still waiting for the truth Brammertz’s report, perceived by as overly cautious, displayed the contrast between him and his predecessor, Detlev Mehlis, who implicated several high-ranking members of the Syrian ruling Assad family as possible suspects in the assassination. In late 2005, he was threatened by Jund al-Sham, an Islamic fundamentalist group, many members of which are ‘descendants’ of Osbat al-Ansar, based in the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp in Sidon. Mehlis left the commission and was replaced by Brammertz in early 2006. The reasons why he left his position still remain unclear. Brammertz has replaced Carla Del Ponte as chief prosecutor for the Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, who allegedly rejected requests to in turn replace Brammertz in Lebanon, choosing instead to take the position of Switzerland’s ambassador to Argentina. Canadian prosecutor, Daniel Bellemare, will take over for Brammertz at the UNIIIC. Brammertz vs. Mehlis Some analysts have loudly criticized Brammertz in comparison to his predecessor, Mehlis. Professor of law at the University of Utah and Lebanese presidential hopeful Dr. Chibli Mallat, wrote in a September Daily Star editorial, “Until the current UN investigator or his successor shows the courage and professionalism expected, the shadow of Syrian involvement remains marked by Detlev Mehlis’ findings.” Indeed, Brammertz’s turn at leading the commission showed him to be a relatively cautious and wary lead investigator. Although his report by no means exonerated Syria, his comments on Syria’s “satisfactory” cooperation in the investigation were seen by many as compromising. Brammertz claimed that the commission was obliged to keep its information secret in order to “protect the integrity of both the investigation and of any future legal process and to ensure the security of individuals who cooperate or desire to cooperate with the commission, as well as the security of the commission’s staff.” Dr. Chafic el-Masri, professor of international relations at the American University of Beirut, said that Brammertz’s use of the word “satisfactory” clearly indicates that the “interrogations did not yet finish,” and that more is to come. But, according to Mallat, “either (Brammertz) has no evidence of the involvement of the Syrian leadership and its Lebanese allies – in which case Mehlis and…[Head of the original UN fact-finding mission Peter] Fitzgerald were wrong, and Brammertz should say so publicly… or Brammertz thinks the conclusions of his predecessors were correct, and he must say so publicly.” A German newspaper last month quoted Mehlis as having expressed regret for leaving the investigation in early 2006. Taking a slightly different view, Beirut-based lawyer Nabil Halabi said that the differences between Brammertz and Mehlis merely reflect a variation in “methods” and little else. While Mehlis was adept at working the media, Halabi explained, Brammertz is not. MP Atef Majdalani told NOW Lebanon that he believes “the names will only become apparent when the investigation is finished and once the judge has to give his decision to the tribunal.” According to Majdalani, Brammertz’s report did not strictly refute any information that had been printed in previous reports. Furthermore, Brammertz does indicate that “there is progress in the investigation and that there are specifications of identities,” and that the information has simply yet to be revealed. https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentary/still_waiting_for_the_truth 2/4 3/6/2018 Still waiting for the truth Not naming names Brammertz’s final report stated that the UNIIIC had identified “new persons of interest” involved in the “aspects of preparation and commission of the crime.” It also indicated that there may be “operational links” between the 18 various assassinations and targeted Beirut bombings at the date of publication, and went on to say that those behind the attacks are still able to strike in Beirut. This may have been proven true with the assassination of François al-Hajj last month. The report stated that the main developments pertain to information concerning the Mitsubishi van used in the attack, the types of explosives, the identities of those involved in the surveillance of Hariri and, also, the motives for the crime. Some analysts have defended Brammertz’s decision not to reveal names as a means of protecting witnesses and preventing possible assassinations. For example, Halabi told NOW Lebanon that “there is danger in the report itself,” and that witnesses should be protected by keeping their identities secret, particularly given that Lebanese law does not provide for witness protection. Brammertz’s strategy, Halabi says, has shown that the commission is in possession of important information, but that it is concealing this information so that ultimately “they can reach the mastermind [of the crime]… The names will be revealed in the tribunal by the general prosecutor rather than during the investigation of the commission.” Majdalani concurred, stating that “the importance of protecting the witnesses is clear.” The rumor mill There have been rumors that Brammertz’s failure to name suspects could be because the UN ultimately seeks to avoid implicating high-ranking Syrian officials, in which case, the implication is that Brammertz commenced his investigation with this very understanding. But Majdalani told NOW Lebanon, “I don’t think any side from the part of the UN and the tribunal would ever threaten anything with the price of the truth.” Similarly, MP Misbah al-Ahdab told NOW Lebanon that rumors of a compromise offering Lebanon in a trade to Syria are something of a conspiracy theory. The rumors, he said, may have surfaced because of international engagement with Syria this fall, though Ahdab believes that this does not mean that an actual deal was struck between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Certainly, Sarkozy’s recent severing of ties with Damascus suggests that, even if such a deal were once on the table, it has now been taken off. Ultimately, Halabi said, although the international tribunal does have political dimensions, in essence, it is “not a political issue,” and as such, politics cannot have a direct effect on it. Rather, it is the “publicity” of the tribunal that is used and abused for political reasons. The future of the investigation The departure of Brammertz and his move to the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia was originally met with protests from human rights groups who believe that a newcomer could in fact disrupt the investigation. But according to Masri, such concerns are largely baseless, since a new commissioner “does not change the knowledge that has so far been acquired by the commission.” And though there may be a change “relating to respects of his personality and his experience,” from the technical point of view, the investigation will go on. https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentary/still_waiting_for_the_truth 3/4 3/6/2018 Still waiting for the truth Though Brammertz’s mandate did not yield any significant public results in terms of “naming names,” it appears clear that, in the coming months, the conclusion of the UNIIIC’s investigations and the transferal of information to the tribunal will be crucial to Lebanon’s presidential elections. This is particularly true given as how far Syria seems willing to go to ensure that its officials are not implicated in the tribunal. It remains to be seen whether or not the UN will continue to straddle the diplomatic line, or decide to clearly implicate the involvement of high-ranking Syrian officials in the assassination of Hariri. But as relations worsen between France and Syria, and as March 14 allegations against Syrian intervention in Lebanese politics continue, further escalation can be expected as the tribunal’s formal establishment in the Hague draws gathers speed. Whatever the motivation behind Brammertz’s strategy, some analysts remain hopeful that it does not mean that, further down the line, names will not be named. According to Masri, “the commission will now be more dedicated to filling in the blanks left in his report.” Others indicate that the international tribunal will make accusations regardless of regional or political alignments, since it will become a matter of international law. Nevertheless, in the next few months, it will finally become clear just how independent the UN’s tribunal is from regional and international developments and whether or not Syria’s local proxies will persist in abetting Syria’s clear intentions to obstruct the tribunal.