The International Tribunal will fall if it continues refusing the statement of claim

Written by Nasser Kandil,

I will begin with something that I know more than anyone else. On August 30th, 2005 I was announced to be a suspected in the assassination of the Prime Minister Rafik Al-Hariri during a press conference that brought together the Prime Minister Fouad Al-Sinior who was entrusted to apply theoretically the law in Lebanon, and the Chief of the International Commission of Inquiry Detlev Mehlis, the legal representative of the prosecution in the criminal investigation which Lebanon was supposed to learn and to practice. That announcement was a violation of the simplest rules of law, because the commission neither sought to meet me, nor called me and I evaded. The accusation of suspicion without any investigation and without any defense is a crime. As for raiding my house in an intelligent way although they know in advance that I was in Damascus and timing the raid in order to oblige me to stay in Damascus for fear within a scenario of false witnesses and domino stones and prosecuting Syria in charge of harboring the wanted is a disgraceful process against investigation and the claim of search for truth. Maybe, the approach of this issue stems from the question about how can the tribunal justify its credibility in parallel with its ignorance of the false witnesses, manipulation of dignities, and the distribution of accusations without ending this cause legally. Why does someone resort to manipulation of investigation and use false witnesses in order to support false accusations unless he has an interest in hiding the real criminals? And why did not the court ask the Public Presecution about the reason of this ignorance as one of the hypotheses and possibilities which it must review to choose the most realistic and coherent.

The return to this point in the course of discussing the text of the public presecution could thwart that big conspiracy and frustrate the considerations, especially because I decided to return immediately to Beirut defying the Commission and its investigators and asking to show me the reason, justification, or document for what was announced by their chief and our prime minister, but the public presecution continued what has been done by its  predecessors in the Investigation Commission, it did not stop at protecting them from the accountability, covering their abuses, and condoning the secrets of their dirty game which caused the unfair detention of four senior security and armed forces officers for several years. It is a game that is related to the assassination or at least its disclosure must lead to the plotter, planner and executor in the cause of the false witnesses as a way that could lead to the planner, plotter and the executor of the assassination itself. But the public presecution left no place for its fall despite its naïve, fragmented, and politicized report; it was involved in mentioning my name twice to ensure its information regarding the assassination, once written in its report when it claimed that the meeting that brought me with the Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri on February 4th of 2005 ten days before the assassination was dedicated to notify me that Al-Hariri would not include me in his list in the parliamentary elections, and once orally, when it talked about the political reason for Al-Hariri ‘s being away from any understanding with Syria and its allies despite the presence of those who tried to affect Al-Hariri reversely.

The simples comment on what I already told the International Commission of Inquiry on August 30th and September 8th 2005 after my return from Damascus was when the investigators said that they had a report from a reliable resource (He is the false witness Zuhair Al-Sedeek) He said that he saw at a Syrian security center in Damascus a report that belongs to Baath Party, and it was likely to be signed personally by me, and that report calls for getting rid of Al-Hariri. I commented that their information is like the information of the one who pretends to be a religious man, and his claim of knowing about Imam Hassan and Hussein that “ Al Khasan and Al Khussein are Muawiya’s daughters that were born in Istanbul” asking them to write that down as a response to their questioning. Therefore the report of the presecution is like the recognition of that claimer about Imam Hassan and Hussein.

It is useful to say that I was happy upon mentioning the meeting with the Prime Minister Al-Hariri on February 4th 2005 despite my demand from the International Commission of Inquiry to investigate in the facts of that meeting which was under the demand of Al-Hariri through the deputy Dr.Atef Majdalani and with the presence of the Major General Wissam Al-Hassan who was still alive when I was brought before the court, they knew at least that the Prime Minister Al-Hariri wanted to reconcile with me after I blamed him upon mentioning my name among those who called them Deputies to Syria, although he knew that my nomination was under an accordance between him and the Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri in exchange for nominating his sister the Deputy Bahiya Al-Hariri in the list of the Speaker Berri in the south. I had already told my colleagues Faisal Salman and Mohammed Shuqair whom I asked to send my message to Al-Hariri that I would not visit him unless he apologized for this abuse. Dr. Majdalani knew who was the initiator for that meeting and in which context, because I gave him a kind of text from my lecture in Tripoli to the Prime Minister Al-Hariri, talking in it that” on the basis of the good behavior of the Shiites of Iraq and the Sunnis of Lebanon, the fate of the resistance and the region will depend, because the US project wants to tempt them with positions in the rule to undermine the resistance”. I received a call from the Prime Minister Al-Hariri telling me that I read your response and that will not happen, asking for a meeting to explain my blame. He added that he did not mean me when he talked about the deputies to Syria, and he has every respect and appreciation. So our meeting was on the next day.

In the meeting, I told the International Commission of Inquiry about many facts, I asked for the presence of the Major General Wissam Al Hassan to ask him about the part in which he was present, during which Al-Hariri asked him to tell me about his meeting with the Deputy Faris Said in 2000. Al Hassan told me about the disagreement between the Prime Minister Al-Hariri and The Qornet Shehwan Gathering “The Christian title of the opposition of Syria and its role at that time” It is the opposition which the public presecution wanted to convince us that Al- Hariri desired to lead an electoral alliance against Syria, considering that it was a political context for the assassination”. Al Hassan said “We were near the door of the elevator, Al –Hariri asked Said “how can ten years lead to hostility against Syria” He replied The hostility’s age is one thousand and four hundred years”. Al-Hariri commented “Today, those who are standing against Syria and calling us to ally with them, hate the history of 1400, it is the date of Muslims not the history of a certain regime in Syria, so Al Hariri will not cooperate with them” This was documented in the investigations of the International Commission of Inquiry, but it was intended to be ignored. This affirms at least two facts: first, the Prime Minister Al-Hariri was interested in dispersing any impression about his intention to lead an alliance against Syria, which the pubic presecution claimed that it was the decision of the Prime Minister. Second, the meeting was cordial and political not electoral at all, by the way that was my condition for the meeting.

Once again, my demand was ignored deliberately when I asked the International Commission of Inquiry to listen to the recordings which were in the house of the Prime Minister Al-Hariri and to listen to that meeting which focused on the desire of the Prime Minister Al-Hariri to know about my objection of an electoral law on the basis of the judiciary as an electoral district on one hand, although he knew that this law got the support of the President Bashar Al-Assad and I am so close to Syria on the other hand. My answer was simply because the project of Judiciary is not the project of the President Al-Assad who was standing neutral between his allies; the President Emile Lahoud and the Minister Suleiman Franjieh who were with the judiciary, while the President of the parliament Nabih Berri and Al Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah who were against the judiciary. Al Hariri inquired about the opportunity to restore the relationship with Syria, readopting the formula of Syria’s allies, and the understanding on a unified draft of an electoral law, I replied positively and we agreed on formulas of communication and positions that met the satisfaction of Syria and its allies, most importantly was his public words against the resolution 1559 by saying the Taif Agreement is unifying us while 1559 resolution is dividing us”..

The simple question is how did the public presecution know that Al-Hariri wanted to notify me that he would not put my name in his lists? Was he obliged to hold a meeting for such a purpose?  He said that publicly a month ago, did it require two hours for notification? Was the meeting under my request to be in his list and then he told me his refusal? Or was it under his demand and my condition was not to discuss the electoral issue in order to keep our friendship and our political search? Why his meeting was followed by his words about the resolution 1559 and Taif? Why did he summon Wissam Al Hassan to notify me about his view of Qornet Shehwan Gathering? And many things that were discussed at that meeting that interpret the political context of that assassination in order not to mention any cooperation between Al-Hariri and Syria, Hezbollah, and the allies.

In the report of the head of the fact-finding mission Peter Fitzgerald there are two political hypotheses; one says that the assassination occurred to prevent the formation of an opposition to Syria and retaliation from the supposed role of Al-Hariri in the resolution 1559. The other hypothesis says that the assassination aims at prosecuting Syria and the resistance and turning his assassination into a roadmap to apply the resolution 1559, so how could a fair court accept that the public presecution could adopt one of the hypotheses without making any effort for a detailed search?

The fragility and the political manipulation do not need evidences in the text of the presecution which based on elements that are legally described as valueless for accusation, versus contexts and hypotheses that start from the political context and end with false witnesses. The Israeli communication network jamming was kept unknown in the report of the commission, and the one who bought the Mitsubishi car was kept unknown too, as the fate of Ahmad Abou Adas and the suicide bomber, even the proving of the possession of many telephone lines to the presecution contrary to the testimonies of the witnesses. Nothing is known for granted and without investigation or court except the fact that the Hezbollah’s leaders killed Al-Hariri !!!.

If the tribunal wants to save the reputation of the international judiciary, it has to refuse the statement of claim at least, because there are not evidences at all not due to their inadequacy.

But the public presecution repeated the tale and said ““ Al Khasan and Al Khussein are Muawiya’s daughters that were born in Istanbul”

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

زر الذهاب إلى الأعلى