Lebanon: Update to LBN33721.E of 29 February 2001 on whether length of service in the South Lebanese Army (SLA) determines the sentences handed down by the Lebanese Military Court (2000-2001)

No information on whether length of service in the South Lebanese Army (SLA) determines the sentences handed down by the Lebanese Military could be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate.

However, the April 2001 UK Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) Country Assessment – Lebanon, which quotes the Foundation for Human and Humanitarian Rights in Lebanon (FHHRL) Report 3 and Reports on SLA Trials nos. 4 to 23, (May to August 2000) states that:

Sentences handed down to former SLA members have apparently depended on such factors as the rank they held, the circumstances under which they joined, the nature of their duties, and whether they had previously served in the (national) Lebanese Army. It appears that ordinary militiamen ('foot soldiers', cooks, etc) have received prison terms of around 12 to 18 months. However, former senior officers in the SLA, or those who served in al_Khiam prison and may be guilty of torture or other war crimes, would receive much harsher sentences.

The UK Home Office Country Assessment – Lebanon also quotes an Amnesty International report which says that "such summary trials, with barely seven minutes spent on each individual, neither allow the innocent to be acquitted nor ensure that those who were guilty of war crimes will be discovered." The assessment makes however the following observations:

Several defendants have been found innocent by the court due to lack of evidence.

In general, the sentences handed down have been more lenient than many had expected; and certainly more lenient than the prosecution and Hizbollah have been demanding.

Many cases have recently been adjourned to allow defence lawyers more time for preparation. In addition, the number of sessions per week has been reduced from three to one.

There is a right of appeal to the Military Supreme Court (although the appeals process is lengthly and expensive and appeals are not covered by legal aid).

The judicial process has been transparent; all court sessions have been open to the press and other observers.

In a 31 July 2000 letter sent to Lebanon President Émile Lahoud, the executive Director of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) Middle East and North Africa Division stated that:

A Human Rights Watch representative who attended five sessions of the military court in June observed that the time allotted to each defendant's trial ranged from a minimum of two minutes to a maximum of fifteen minutes, with the length determined by the complexity of the case and the seriousness of the charges. The presiding judge asked most defendants similar questions and would refer to information in their files that had been collected by military intelligence investigators while defendants were held incommunicado and had no access to lawyers. Civilians who visited Israel were asked when and why they travelled there, and, if relevant, were questioned further about the type of jobs they held and the dates of employment. Former employees of the civil administration were asked to describe their jobs, salary, length of service, and supervisors, and were also queried about their contacts with Israeli officers and information that they provided about individuals or suspicious movements to SLA or Israeli officers. Former militiamen were questioned about circumstances of their recruitment, dates of service, and salary, and were asked to describe where they served, the weapons they carried, and military operations in which they participated. They were also asked to provide the names of their immediate commanders and the soldiers who served with them, and describe information that they provided to SLA or Israeli officers about individuals or suspicious movements.

We observed that defense lawyers were not familiar with the case files, which they received the day before the proceedings. Some lawyers told us that the files did not necessarily include the complete record of their clients' interrogations and may have been abbreviated summaries. Although the court was willing to grant lawyers' requests for an adjournment of several weeks in order to study the files and prepare a proper legal defense, in most cases the lawyers did not ask for more time. They appeared resigned to the fact that the court was issuing formulaic judgments and sentences in the overwhelming majority of cases, and that more personalized defenses would have no effect on the court's rulings.

Following the questions of the presiding judge, there was rarely cross-examination of defendants by the military prosecutors or the defense lawyers. We also noted that lawyers typically opted for broad, standardized defenses rather than tailoring statements to the individual facts and evidence of the cases of their clients.

The abbreviated proceedings and speed that have been the main features of these trials since June 5 – which have gone largely unchallenged by defense lawyers – leaves the defendants without the rights ensured under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Lebanon has ratified. These include the right "to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing" (article 14/3/b) and the right "to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him" (article 14/3/e).

The military court has ignored the claims of some defendants that they were tortured or mistreated while in custody. According to the Foundation for Human and Humanitarian Rights in Lebanon (FHHRL), a nongovernmental organization that is monitoring the trials, these include: Hussein Zayn al-Abidin (June 21 trial); Zakaria Fadlallah Jum'a (June 26 trial); and Hanna Karim al-Alam (July 3 trial). FHHRL reported that al-Alam "claimed that he was tortured and pointed out to the court the pus and blood-stained bandages around his leg," and said that medical care was not provided for five days.

A last concern is that there is no independent judicial oversight of the military court. The U.N. Human Rights Committee noted this in April 1997, when it expressed concern about "the lack of supervision over the military court's procedures and verdicts by the ordinary courts."

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the Research Directorate within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. Please find below the list of sources consulted in researching this Information Request.

References

Human Rights Watch (HRW). 31 July 2000. Lebanon: Letter to President Emile Lahoud." [Accessed 12 Sept. 2001]

UK Home Office. April 2001. Country Assessment – Lebanon. Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). [Accessed 12 Sept. 2001]

Additional Sources Consulted

Arab Studies Quarterly [Lake Forest, Illinois]

Arabies [Paris]

IRB databases

Jane's Intelligence Review [London]

Jerusalem Report

Journal of South Asian and Midddle East Studies

LEXIS/NEXIS

Middle East International

Middle East Quarterly

Monde Arabe Maghreb Machrek [Paris].

La Nouvelle Lettre de la FIDH

Resource Centre Country Files: Lebanon

Internet sources including:

Amnesty International

Arabic News.com

World News Connection (WNC)

Search Engines:

Google