Notice Otherwise Given: Will in Absentia Trials at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon Violate Human Rights?

49 Pages Posted: 11 Aug 2009 Last revised: 26 Feb 2010

Chris Jenks

Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law

Date Written: July 31, 2009

Abstract

On March 1, 2009, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) commenced operations in the Netherlands. The mandate of the STL is to try those allegedly responsible for the 2005 bombing in Beirut which killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. A collaborative effort between Lebanon and the United Nations, the STL is to be of “international character based on the highest standards of justice.” However, the STL’s in absentia trial provisions are based on a far different, and lower, standard. This article posits that the STL’s in absentia trial provisions violate human rights norms, indeed the U.N. expressly rejected such trials when establishing earlier tribunals. Further broadening the departure from other U.N. tribunals, the STL allows for in absentia trials where the accused is assumed to have received notice of an indictment through publication in the media or by the STL communicating the indictment to the accused’s State of residence or nationality. While the STL provides a right of retrial where an accused is convicted in absentia, the right is to be retried before the STL - a tribunal currently only funded for its first year of operation. This article explores the ramifications if the STL’s notice and retrial provisions violate the fair trial rights provided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention. In the short term, States from which extradition of those convicted in absentia is sought would face an impossible choice - comply with an extradition request from a U.N. sanctioned tribunal or with the State’s binding human rights obligations. In the long term, the significance of the STL’s potentially flawed in absentia provisions may extend well beyond the tribunal’s legacy. There are broader implications - of the U.N.’s credibility and whether in absentia trial provisions, or any other aspect of supposedly settled criminal procedure, are now negotiable in future tribunals. Ultimately the article determines that the STL’s in absentia trial provisions were in a sense purchased, purchased at a price which will be paid by the international community writ large.

Keywords: Human Rights, In absentia, Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Counterterrorism, Terrorism, United Nations, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure

Suggested Citation

Jenks, Chris, Notice Otherwise Given: Will in Absentia Trials at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon Violate Human Rights? (July 31, 2009). Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 33, No.1, p. 57, 2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1441689

Chris Jenks (Contact Author)

Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 750116
Dallas, TX 75275
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
269
Rank
91,705
Abstract Views
1,438