Summary:
Political prisoners, Samir Gea’gea and Jirjis al-Khouri
are serving life sentences for their alleged
involvement in politically-motivated killings. They
have been held since 1994 at the Ministry of Defence
Detention Centre (MDDC) in solitary confinement
mostly in cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions,
following unfair trials.
This report describes Amnesty International’s
concerns about the pre-trial detention, the cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment and unfair trials of Samir Gea’gea’ (leader of the banned Lebanese Forces
(LF)) and Jirjis al-Khouri, a member of the LF. In
1994 they were arrested along with scores of LF
members after the bombing of the Sayidat al-Najat
(Lady of Deliverance) church in Junieh, in February
1994, in which 10 people died.
Both men suffered serious violations and
irregularities in pre-trial detention at the MDDC,
which, at the time of their arrest, was an unlawful
detention centre in violation of Lebanese law and
international standards governing detention. Jirjis
al-Khouri told the judge at his trial that he was
tortured to “confess” during his interrogation, by
members of the military intelligence. Both men were
held incommunicado, without access to lawyers or
family members, during interrogation; they were not
brought promptly before a judge to review the
lawfulness of their detention. Their trials fell far
short of international standards. In violation of
international standards for fair trial, Jirjis al-Khouri’s
“confession” was accepted as the main evidence
against him. Amnesty International believes that
any statement made involuntarily or extracted under
torture or ill-treatment should be excluded as
evidence in judicial or other proceedings, except
where it is evidence against a person accused of
perpetrating torture.
Amnesty International is concerned that Samir
Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri continue to be
subjected to ill-treatment in detention. Over ten
years after their arrest, they remain in solitary
confinement at the MDDC. They are not allowed to
communicate with other detainees, are denied access
to newspapers, radio, TV and any literature of a
political nature. They receive visits from their
families on specified days of the week which are
restricted and subject to prior approval by the
Public Prosecutor, and are conducted in the presence
of military intelligence officers.
Cut off from the outside world the two political
prisoners have apparently suffered physically and
mentally. Samir Gea’gea’ suffers from, among other
things, osteomalacia, a disease of the bones
possibly due to a lack of exposure to regular and
adequate sunlight. In September 2004 the
authorities announced that he had been moved to a
new cell, apparently with improved conditions.
Amnesty International is calling on the Lebanese
authorities to release Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri
immediately, or promptly give them a retrial before
an ordinary independent criminal court, in
proceedings which adhere to international standards
for fair trial; and to ensure that all allegations
of torture and ill-treatment be investigated
independently. The organization is also urging the
authorities to: ensure the justice system undergoes
reformation, including the abolition of the
single-tier courts and the death penalty; implement
all relevant international treaties and standards;
improve detention conditions in the MDDC including
by ensuring that they are brought in line with
international standards. In particular the
authorities should take immediate steps to ensure
that detainees are well-treated and not subjected to
any form of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment.
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Contextual Background
The arrests of Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis
al-Khouri
Pre-trial detention and torture at the MDDC
Trials before the Justice Council
Prolonged solitary confinement at the MDDC
|
Introduction
Leader of
the banned Lebanese Forces (LF), Samir Gea’gea’, and
Jirjis al-Khouri, a member of the LF, have been held
at the Ministry of Defence Detention Centre (MDDC) in
Beirut since 1994. Both are serving life sentences for
their alleged involvement in politically-motivated
killings and are being held in cruel, inhuman and
degrading conditions, after unfair trials. Samir
Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri are now the only
political prisoners held following their trials at the
MDDC.
In this
report, Amnesty International documents human rights
violations suffered by Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri
during their incommunicado pre-trial detention, their
interrogation, their trial before the Justice Council,
and their imprisonment at the MDDC. The main human
rights concerns are:
-
Jirjis
al-Khouri was not allowed access to lawyers during
interrogations while he was held incommunicado in
pre-trial detention, and was not brought promptly
before a judge to review the lawfulness of his
detention;
-
While
held incommunicado in pre-trial detention Jirjis al-Khouri
was made to believe that he was a witness, and was
not informed as required by law of charges being
brought against him;
-
While
held incommunicado in pre-trial detention Jirjis al-Khouri
was reportedly tortured and ill-treated, and the
“confessions” he claimed he made under torture were
subsequently accepted as the main evidence in his
trial;
-
Samir
Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri
were unfairly tried before the Justice Council, a
special court whose decisions are final and not
subject to appeal and which so far has failed
to investigate allegations of torture and other
abuses reportedly committed during pre-trial
detention;
-
Samir
Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri have been held for
over ten years in solitary confinement in cruel
inhuman and degrading conditions, in a manner
detrimental to their physical and mental health.
-
Samir
Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri, like scores of other
LF members, may have been victims of human rights
violations committed in a climate of political
repression and intimidation. Amnesty International
is concerned that there is no apparent prospect of
these two long term political prisoners being
retried by the Justice Council. The organization
is, therefore, calling for Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis
al-Khouri to be released or
promptly retried, before
an ordinary and independent criminal court, in
proceedings that conform with international fair
trial standards, and for the allegations of
torture and ill-treatment to be investigated. Over
the last ten years the Lebanese authorities have
ignored calls by Amnesty International and other
human rights groups for the injustice visited upon
the two men, including unfair trial, lack of
pre-trial guarantees and allegations of torture in
incommunicado detention, to be rectified.
Contextual Background
On 27
February 1994, a bomb exploded in Sayidat a-Najat
(Lady of Deliverance) church in Zuq Michael in Junieh,
near Beirut, killing 10 people and injuring others. In
March and April 1994 scores of members and supporters
of the Lebanese Forces (LF), the main Christian
militia during the Lebanese civil war, including its
leader Samir Gea’gea’, were rounded up and detained
for various periods in connection with the bombing.
Following these arrests, the authorities banned the LF
alleging that it was responsible for the church
bombing, even though the investigation into the
incident had not reached a conclusion. Consequently,
there were additional restrictions on the freedom of
expression and association of LF affiliates and
suspected supporters, as well as other opposition
groups. These measures led to serious human rights
violations, including arbitrary arrest, torture, and
unfair trials.
During the
interrogation of LF members held in connection with
the church bombing, the examining magistrate announced
that he had discovered evidence indicating that the LF
- led by Samir Gea’gea’ - had perpetrated the
assassination of the leader of the Liberal National
Party, Dany Cham’oun and members of his family in
October 1990. Subsequently, Samir Gea’gea’ and other
LF officials were indicted for the killings; some were
indicted in absentia. They were then referred to the
Justice Council, the highest criminal court in
Lebanon, in connection with both the church bombing
and the killing of Dany Cham’oun and his family.
Accordingly the Justice Council proceeded with a
concurrent trial for Samir Gea’gea’ and other LF
officials accused in both cases. In June 1995, the
Justice Council issued a verdict in relation to the
Dany Cham’oun case, sentencing Samir Gea’gea’ to
death, immediately commuted to life imprisonment.
In the case
of Samir Gea’gea’ and his involvement in the political
killing of Dany Cham’oun, his defence lawyers argued
that the crime took place during the civil war and was
therefore covered by the General Amnesty Law of 1991
(Law No. 84/91). However, this argument was dismissed
by the Justice Council which said the killing, despite
having taken place during that period, fell within the
category of crimes exempted from the Amnesty Law, and
that the Justice Council had jurisdiction to pursue
it.
The General
Amnesty Law granted an amnesty for crimes committed
before 28 March 1991. It was promulgated by the
Lebanese government on 26 August 1991 and applied to
crimes committed by all militias and armed groups
throughout the civil war. The Amnesty Law was
intended to encourage the ‘turning of a new page’ in
the political history of Lebanon. However, it did
allow for the exclusion of certain crimes, the most
important of which are found in Article 3 of the Law,
which says the amnesty does not cover "crimes of
assassination or attempted assassination of religious
figures, political leaders, and foreign or Arab
diplomats".
The
Lebanese public appears to be divided over the Amnesty
Law: while some argue, as does the government, that
the Law facilitates peace and reconciliation, others
believe it provides impunity for those responsible for
human rights abuses in the past and prevents the
emergence of truth. Amnesty International has on
several occasions expressed its concern about the
Lebanese Amnesty Law of 1991. In its report Lebanon:
Human Rights Developments and Violations (MDE 18/1997)
Amnesty International stated:
“In
general, Amnesty International believes that there
should be thorough investigations into allegations of
human rights violations. The object of such
investigations should be to determine individual and
collective responsibility and to provide a full
account of truth to the victim, their relatives and
society. Investigations must be undertaken by
impartial institutions, and must be granted the
necessary authority and resources for their task. The
results of such investigations should be made public.
Amnesty International believes that a new future of
true and lasting peace and human rights protection in
Lebanon is only possible if the country comes to terms
with its past through a process aimed at investigating
and establishing the truth of the war period and its
related abuses.”
Apart from
the general concern that the amnesty gives impunity to
those who have committed human rights violations, the
exemptions prescribed by the Amnesty Law have in
effect created an environment which allows for
selectivity and discrimination. The fact that certain
crimes such as killings of religious and political
personalities are exempt from the Amnesty Law has led
to discrimination between victims of human rights
violations during the war on grounds of their status -
that is, only those violations committed against
political and religious leaders are to be pursued to
the exclusion of others. Likewise, the Amnesty Law
states that those committing crimes covered by the
amnesty, after the date of its promulgation, will be
liable for prosecution and will also be liable for all
the offences they committed during the war. This
approach seems to be unfair and hampers attempts to
address multiple human rights violations committed
during the war, or to bring all perpetrators of these
violations to justice, in an equal and fair manner.
The trials
of Samir Gea’gea’ and LF supporters are examples of
the apparent selectiveness of this approach. For
example, while asserting its jurisdiction over crimes
such as assassination of political and religious
leaders, the Justice Council has not actively pursued
such cases apart from those allegedly committed by
Samir Gea’gea’. This raises concerns about the
impartiality and fairness of the court in dealing with
the politically motivated assassinations during the
war. This may be due to the fact that the Justice
Council can only act if and when such cases are
referred to it by the Council of Ministers, whose
decisions in this regard may have been politically
motivated. Although the case of the killing of Dany
Cham’oun was originally referred to the Justice
Council on 30 October 1990, shortly after the killing
took place, it did not initiate and investigation or
pursue Samir Gea’gea’ for this crime until 1994 when
he and scores of LF members were arrested in
connection with the church bombing and at a time when
the LF’s relations with the government had broken down.
It is not yet clear why the Justice Council has not
initiated proceedings in the cases referred to it by
the government even after the security and political
situation gradually stabilised by 1992.
The arrests of Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri
Samir
Gea’gea’ was arrested on 21 April 1994 along with
scores of other LF members rounded up in mass arrests
in March and April, following the February 1994
bombing of the Sayidat al-Najat (Lady of Deliverance)
church in Zuq-Mikhael in Junieh which resulted in the
death of 10 people and the injury of others. Jirjis
al-Khouri handed himself over to the authorities on 15
March 1994, a week after military intelligence
officers stormed his family’s home and arrested the
entire family, including his ten year old sister.
However, after members of
the family were released, they were subjected to
intimidation and harassment between 1994 and 2002.
During that period their home was raided time and time
again by members of the military intelligence and
other security departments, and their personal
belongings, including valuables and books were
reportedly confiscated. On his arrest, Jirjis al-Khouri
was handcuffed and blindfolded and taken to the MDDC
where he was held incommunicado for about six weeks.
Samir Gea’gea’, a medical doctor by training, was born
in ‘Ayn al-Rummanah in Beirut in 1952. In 1986 he
became leader of the LF, the main Christian militia
during the civil war. Jirjis al-Khouri, a computer
technician, was born in Tyre in south Lebanon in 1968.
His exact position within the LF at the time of his
arrest is not clear, but he was allegedly a member of
the LF security department. He was previously a member
of the Phalange Party’s students’ bureau.
Pre-trial detention and torture at the MDDC
There were
serious violations and irregularities in Samir Gea’gea’
and Jirjis al-Khouri’s
pre-trial detention at the MDDC. The detainees
were arrested without warrant and were held
incommunicado without access to lawyers or families.
They were not brought promptly before a judge to
review the lawfulness of their detention. Amnesty
International is not aware of any habeas corpus
remedies made available to them during their unlawful
detention.
Both
defendants were denied access to their lawyers during
their interrogations at the MDDC. At a later stage
lawyers were allowed to see them only for short
periods of time and at intervals which would not allow
them to perform their defence tasks properly. The
defendants did not have unrestricted access to their
legal papers, and defence lawyers were not allowed to
communicate with them during trial proceedings. In the
case of Jirjis al-Khouri, these flaws led defence
lawyers to argue that all statements obtained during
preliminary interrogations should be declared null and
void as most were not carried out by authorized
judicial officers, in contravention of the Code of
Criminal Procedures.
Following
his incommunicado detention and during the course of
almost one year, Jirjis al-Khouri was allowed to see
his lawyer only three times, briefly and in a very
restricted manner. While held incommunicado he was not
informed of the charges brought against him and only
knew of them when the indictments were issued. During
interrogation while held incommunicado, he was made to
believe that he was a witness rather than a defendant,
and was not informed as required by law of his rights
in pre-trial detention nor of the charges being
brought against him.
Jirjis al-Khouri
told the court he was tortured during incommunicado
pre-trial detention, and stated that “confessions” –
which he retracted – were extracted as a result. He
said he was tortured by members of military
intelligence who used many techniques including: the
ballanco (hanging by the wrists which are tied behind
the back); electric shocks; having his toe nails
crushed; having his hair pulled out; repeatedly being
deprived of food and sleep over a period of more than
40 days; being forced to drink dirty water; and
hearing threats to kill members of his family. As a
result of torture, he said he was unable to stand for
about one month, bled from parts of his body including
his mouth, suffered hallucinations and forgot his
name. He said he was being beaten in the presence of
judges and the Public Prosecutor. He was told that he
had to choose one of two options: to confess that he
had himself bombed the church or that he had
participated in the bombing. He told the court that
finally he signed papers presented to him because he
could no longer stand the effects of torture which
were compounded by pain from a back operation he had
had in 1987.
Amnesty
International has received many reports of torture
committed at the MDDC. Fawzi al-Rasi, who was among
those held in connection with the church bombing in
1994, died in custody apparently as a result of
torture there. He died after being admitted to an
intensive care unit on 22 April 1994. At the time of
the arrest and subsequent incommunicado detention of
Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri, the MDDC was an
unlawful place of detention operating contrary to
Lebanese law and international standards. It continues
to operate outside the state’s ordinary prison system
despite its legalization as a place of detention in
January 1995.
The MDDC is
one of about eight “private” detention centres in the
country which were authorized by the government during
the first half of the 1990s through a decree issued by
the Council of Ministers. They are under the
jurisdiction of the Minister of Defence and are
apparently run by the military intelligence and other
security services. A maximum security prison, the
MDDC has been used over the years as a transit
detention centre where detainees are held for weeks or
months, before being transferred, mainly to ordinary
prisons. In certain cases political detainees may be
brought back to the MDDC where they may be abused
again. The MDDC continues to be out of bounds of the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and
apparently of prison inspection systems operated by
the Ministry of Interior.
The
reputation of the MDDC was such that when a detainee
was told in 2000 that he was being transferred there
he was overwhelmed with “fear and was praying to God
to be dead before [his] arrival so they could not
touch [him]”.
Another former detainee and member of the LF held for
years without trial at the MDDC told Amnesty
International in 2002:
“There was
torture by electric shocks and the Ballanco and
extraction of ‘confessions’ under duress. Cells were
without windows or sun light. It was like a grave: you
are confined to one place for long periods and
subjected to ill-treatment, not allowed to have access
to the toilet except one time during day time (during
the night detainees are provided with containers to
use instead) when the detainee will be blindfolded and
handcuffed. At times the eleven cells in the detention
centre would be full to the extent that people would
be left handcuffed and blindfolded in the corridors.
As a result of long solitary confinement underground
detainees suffered physically and psychologically.
They were physically weak suffering from pain in their
joints.”
Some of the
torture methods documented in recent years by Amnesty
International from testimonies given by former
detainees at the MDDC include:
o
Incommunicado detention in underground cells of about
three by two metres without access to fresh air or
natural light;
o
Being stripped naked;
o
Blindfolding, hand-cuffing and tying of hands behind
the back;
o
Prolonged interrogation for hours, mostly during the
night;
o
Beating on different parts of the body;
o
Crushing of toes;
o
Pulling out of hair;
o
Exposure to screams of other detainees being tortured;
o
Being threatened that female relatives would be
attacked and raped;
o
Being forced to remain for prolonged periods in fixed
positions;
o
Being subjected to electric shocks;
o
The ballanco (hanging by the wrists which are tied
behind the back);
o
Having one’s religious beliefs denigrated;
o
Being prevented from praying or having access to
priests;
o
Prolonged suspension in contorted positions while
being beaten with sticks and cables on the feet;
o
Deprivation of sleep, food and drink for prolonged
periods;
o
Denial of access to the toilet except once during the
day, and being forced to use containers during the
night.
Trials before the Justice Council
On 13 June
1994, 22 people including Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis
al-Khouri, were charged in connection with the church
bombing but charges against most of them were later
dropped by the examining magistrate. The charges
brought against both defendants in accordance with the
provisions of the Penal Code and [Terrorism] Law
11/1/1958 included the offences of “carrying out acts
intended to change the Constitution by illegal means”,
“killings” and aiming to abolish the “legitimate role
represented by the army”. Eight of the 22, including
Samir Gea=gea=
and Jirjis al-Khouri, were referred to trial (five of
them in absentia) before the Justice Council. In July
1996 the court acquitted Samir Gea‘gea’ of the church
bombing charge, but sentenced him to ten years
imprisonment for
Amaintaining
a militia in the guise of a political party,” and for
“dealing with military weapons and explosives@;
Jirjis al-Khouri was sentenced to life imprisonment
with hard labour.
Between
1995 and 1999 Samir Gea’gea’ was handed down multiple
death sentences commuted to life imprisonment by the
Justice Council for the October 1990 killing of Dany
Cham’oun and his family, the assassinations during the
civil war of former Prime Minister Rashid Karami in
1987, and the attempted assassination of former
Lebanese Minister Michel al-Murr in 1991. A Criminal
Court also sentenced him to life imprisonment for the
assassination of former LF cadre Elias al-Zayek in
1990.
The Justice
Council is a special court to which cases are referred
at the discretion of the Council of Ministers, on the
advice of the Minster of Justice, and not as a result
of normal judicial procedures. The Justice Council has
jurisdiction over cases involving, among other things,
assassinations of, or assassination attempts on senior
politicians, diplomats and religious personalities and
cases of political violence and “terrorism”. There is
no right of judicial review of the sentences passed by
the Justice Council, including death penalty
sentences. Amnesty International has expressed
concerns about the Justice Council’s procedures which
are incompatible with fair trial standards as laid
down by Article 14 of the the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The UN Human
Rights Committee, the body which moniters implemention
by states of the ICCPR, has pointed out that
“decisions passed by the Justice Council are not
subject to appeal ... contrary to article 14,
paragraph 5, of the Covenant.”
Amnesty International is also concerned that
defendants tried before this court are routinely held
in prolonged pre-trial detention, sometimes for years.
Amnesty
International considers trials before the Justice
Council to be in violation of international standards
for fair trial because its decisions are final and not
subject to appeal. The way cases referred to this
court are chosen is selective, and the manner in which
they are prosecuted may be based on political
considerations rather than legal merit. Article 26 of
the ICCPR states “[a]ll persons are equal before the
law and are entitled without any discrimination to the
equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law
shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all
persons equal and effective protection against
discrimination on any ground such as race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other
status.” Principle 5 emphasizes the right to be tried
before an ordinary court: “[everyone]
shall have the right to be tried by ordinary courts or
tribunals using established legal procedures.
Tribunals that do not use the duly established
procedures of the legal process shall not be created
to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary
courts or judicial tribunals.”
Most of the
defendants sentenced by this court over the last ten
years were affiliated to political groups opposed to
the government. Their trials were seriously
prejudiced as a result of politically motivated smear
campaigns following their arrest. In the two cases
discussed in this report and subsequent cases brought
before this court, Amnesty International noticed a
persistent violation of the right to presumption of
innocence.
One of the
main flaws of the Justice Council is that it does not
have total jurisdiction over the legal process of the
cases brought before it, especially jurisdiction over
all pre-trial procedures.
This is contrary to Principle 3 of the UN Basic
Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary which
states ''[t]he judiciary shall have jurisdiction over
all issues of a judicial nature and shall have
exclusive authority to decide whether an issue
submitted for its decision is within its competence as
defined by law.''
As far as
Amnesty International is aware, the Justice Council
has failed to investigate numerous allegations made by
defendants of torture and ill-treatment during
pre-trial detention. In the
case of Jirjis al-Khouri, the Justice Council has
failed to investigate serious allegations of torture
and extraction of “confessions” under torture and
ill-treatment despite Jirjis al-Khouri’s accusation
that the then Public Prosecutor was present while he
was being beaten during interrogation
in incommunicado detention.
Prolonged solitary confinement at the MDDC
Over ten
years after their arrests, Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis
al-Khouri remained held in solitary confinement in
individual underground cells at the MDDC. They are not
allowed to communicate with other detainees even when
they are outside their cells, and are denied access to
newspapers, radio, TV and any literature of a
political nature. Both detainees, however, receive
visits from members of their families on specified
days of the week. The visits are restricted and are
subject to prior approval by the Public Prosecutor,
and are conducted from behind glass barriers in the
presence of military intelligence officers.
Cut off
from the outside world the two political prisoners
have apparently suffered physically and mentally.
Samir Gea’gea’ was examined by a team of medical
doctors, who made their findings public in a press
conference held at the Medical Syndicate in Beirut on
16 September 2004. The examination revealed that Samir
Gea’gea’ suffers from osteomalacia, a disease of the
bones uncommon among those who are in their early
fifties as is the case with Samir Gea’gea’, and which
could lead to spontaneous fracturing of the bones.
Despite additional medical examination the cause of
this disease was unclear, leading the panel of doctors
to believe that it may be due to a lack of exposure
over the years to regular and adequate sunlight. The
report also revealed that he suffers from tachycardia
or an irregular heart beat which may be the result of
“physically and mentally stressful conditions”. The
panel stressed the necessity of providing him with
proper medical care in accordance with international
standards, and concluded that the general health of
Samir Gea’gea’ appears to be fine, but there are signs
of ill-health in view of the heart and bone
conditions. In previous years he had suffered from
paralysis of one of his fingers and chronic pain in
his right shoulder. Ten days after the release of the
medical report on Samir Gea’gea’, the authorities
announced that he had been moved to a new cell with
reportedly better conditions.
The precise
health condition of Jirjis al-Khouri is not known
given that he has not been allowed access to
independent medical care, but he is reportedly
suffering from pains in his spine, neck, leg and
stomach. He reportedly sleeps on a mattress on the
floor. According to information obtained by Amnesty
International, his family’s request to allow him
access to an independent medical examination has been
refused by the authorities. He is allowed access to
his family every Tuesday and Thursday excluding public
holidays, but his family’s requests for him to be
allowed access to priests, medical care and homemade
food have been denied.
Amnesty International considers prolonged solitary
confinement to be cruel and damaging to the physical
and mental health of a prisoner. This is particularly
so in the case of Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri
who have been held for over ten years in solitary and
isolated cells in a place which is not a prison
institution, not subject to ordinary prison rules, and
not accessible to visits by the ICRC or other
inspectors. Article 7 of the UN Basic Principles for
the Treatment of Prisoners states: "Efforts addressed
to the abolition of solitary confinement as a
punishment, or to the restriction of its use, should
be undertaken and encouraged." The Human Rights
Committee has stated that "prolonged solitary
confinement... may amount to acts prohibited by
article 7” of the ICCPR which states that “no one
shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.".
Lebanon’s obligations under human rights law
In these two cases the safeguards that must be
accorded to pre-trial detainees have been absent,
leading to allegations of torture and intimidation to
extract “confessions”. One of these safeguards is the
right of the detainee to be brought without delay
before a judicial or other competent authority.
According to Article 9(3) of the ICCPR, to which
Lebanon has been a state party since 1976, "[a]nyone
arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be
brought promptly before a judge or other officer
authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall
be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to
release." Principle 37 of the UN Body of Principles
for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment states,
"A person detained on a criminal charge shall be
brought before a judicial or other authority provided
by law promptly after his arrest. Such authority shall
decide without delay upon the lawfulness and necessity
of detention. No person may be kept under detention
pending investigation or trial except upon the written
order of such an authority. A detained person shall,
when brought before such an authority, have the right
to make a statement on the treatment received by him
while in custody."
The Lebanese authorities are also obliged to
investigate allegations of torture. In the case of
Jirjis al-Khouri the authorities refused to conduct an
independent investigation into claims of torture, and
considered a medical report they commissioned to be
conclusive proof that he had not been tortured. The
Special Rapporteur on torture has stated that "the
absence of marks on the body that would be consistent
with allegation[s] of torture should not necessarily
be treated by prosecutors and judges as proof that
such allegations are false" and has called for "the
judiciary to be made more aware of other forms of
torture, such as intimidation and other threats”.
The UN Commission on Human Rights has stated that
"intimidation and coercion, as described in article 1
of the Convention [against Torture]…, including
serious and credible threats, as well as death
threats, to the physical integrity of the victim or of
a third person, can amount to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or to torture".
Amnesty International is concerned that despite
categorical retraction by Jirjis al-Khouri of the
statements he made while held incommunicado at the
MDDC, asserting that they were made under torture, the
Justice Council accepted them and considered them as
the main evidence against him and other defendants.
This contravenes
Article 15 of the UN Convention against Torture which
provides that states parties must “ensure
that any statement which is established to have been
made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as
evidence in any proceedings, except against a person
accused of torture as evidence that the statement was
made”.
The Special Rapporteur on torture has stated "[n]o
statement or confession made by a person deprived of
liberty, other than one made in [the] presence of a
judge or a lawyer, should have a probative value in
court, except as evidence against those who are
accused of having obtained the confession by unlawful
means."
The Special Rapporteur on torture has recommended, "[p]rosecutors
and judges should not require conclusive proof of
physical torture or ill-treatment (much less final
conviction of an accused perpetrator) before deciding
not to rely as against the detainee on confessions or
information alleged to have been obtained by such
treatment; indeed, the burden of proof should be on
the State to demonstrate the absence of coercion."
Article 15 of the Convention against Torture states,
"[e]ach State Party shall ensure that any statement
which is established to have been made as a result of
torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any
proceedings, except against a person accused of
torture as evidence that the statement was made." The
Committee against Torture has recommended that "all
evidence obtained directly or indirectly by torture be
strictly prevented from reaching the cognizance of the
deciding judges in all judicial proceedings".
At the MDDC and other “private” prisons operated by
the military intelligence and other security forces,
political detainees, arrested usually without warrant,
are routinely held incommunicado for months without
the knowledge of their relatives or lawyers. This
practice, which has continued for years now, apart
from being in itself a human rights violation,
facilitates other human rights violations against
detainees including torture and ill-treatment leading
to physical and mental ill-health and even death in
custody. These are violations of Lebanese law as well
as of international human rights standards and
treaties to which Lebanon is a state party, including
the UN Convention against Torture. Article 10 of the
UN Declaration on Enforced Disappearance states, "[a]ny
person deprived of liberty shall be held in an
officially recognized place of detention".
The Human Rights Committee states that detainees
should be held “in places officially recognized as
places of detention". Furthermore, the Special
Rapporteur on torture has stated, "the maintenance of
secret places of detention should be abolished under
law. It should be a punishable offence for any
official to hold a person in a secret and/or
unofficial place of detention. Any evidence obtained
from a detainee in an unofficial place of detention
and not confirmed by the detainee during interrogation
at official locations should not be admitted as
evidence in court."
Despite
calls, including from members of parliament, for the
improvement of conditions in “private” detention
centres and for them to be brought in line with
Lebanese prison regulations and international
standards, violations against detainees at the MDDC
continue to be widely reported and appear not to be
investigated. The lack of ICRC access to the MDDC runs
counter to Decree No. 8800 issued by President Emile
Lahoud on 4 October 2002. The Decree states
“Delegates of the ICRC shall be allowed to visit the
prisoners they choose, to talk to them without
restriction or surveillance for the whole duration of
the visit, and in a place that they choose inside the
prison. They shall be allowed to record the identity
of the prisoners they meet.” The Decree authorizes
medical delegates of the ICRC to meet all the
prisoners they choose and to interview them without
surveillance. However, despite this Decree the ICRC
continues to be denied access to the MDDC, apparently
due to the refusal of the military intelligence to
comply with the Decree.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Amnesty
International considers the trial of Samir Gea’gea’
and Jirjis al-Khouri to be in violation of
international standards of fair trial, and their
conditions of detention to be cruel, inhuman and
degrading. The organization is equally concerned at
reports of torture and ill-treatment inflicted on
Jirjis al-Khouri and scores of other detainees who
have been held at the MDDC. The organization regrets
that the Lebanese authorities have failed so far to
address its repeated calls for these two prisoners to
be given a fair trial, and for all allegations of
torture and ill-treatment and extraction of
“confessions” under torture and ill-treatment at the
MDDC during incommunicado detention, to be
investigated independently.
The organization believes that any statement made
involuntarily or extracted under torture or
ill-treatment should be excluded as evidence in
judicial or other proceedings except where it is
evidence against a person accused of perpetrating
torture. Amnesty International calls on the
Lebanese authorities to implement without delay the
following recommendations:
Samir
Gea’gea’ and Jirjis al-Khouri should be released, or
promptly retried before an
ordinary and independent criminal court, that applies
regular provisions of the criminal law, in proceedings
which must adhere to international standards for fair
trial, including the right of the defendants to:
-
have
adequate time and facilities for the preparation of
their defence and to communicate with counsel of
their own choosing, in private and without any
hindrance;
-
be tried
without undue delay;
-
examine,
or have examined, the witnesses against them and to
obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses
on their behalf under the same conditions as
witnesses against them;
-
not be
compelled to testify against themselves or to
“confess” guilt;
-
have any
statements obtained through torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment made
inadmissible in any proceedings before the court;
-
appeal
and review the court ruling before a higher court,
which is similarly independent of government;
Conduct an
independent, thorough, and impartial investigation
into their trials and allegations of torture and
ill-treatment, and their prolonged solitary
confinement in cruel, inhuman and degrading
conditions;
Reform the
justice system, including by abolishing the
single-tier courts and the death penalty. Ensure that
all detainees are tried before a competent and
impartial court established by law without any
interference of a political or any other nature and
with the judges having exclusive power to decide on
matters of a judicial nature;
Implement
all relevant international treaties and standards
including the ICCPR, the UN Convention against
Torture, the UN Body of Principles for the Protection
of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment, and the Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners;
Enforce
Presidential Decree No. 8800 and ensure that the ICRC
is allowed immediate and unfettered access to all
Lebanese prisons including those run by the MDDC and
all other “private” detention centres. The MDDC and
all other prisons must be subject to independent
inspection through bodies that are independent of the
authorities running the prisons;
Improve
detention conditions in the MDDC including by ensuring
that they are brought in line with international
standards. The MDDC and all other “private” prisons
must be subject to normal prison regulations governing
the prison system in Lebanon and in line with
recognized international standards for the treatment
of detainees;
In
particular take immediate steps to ensure that the
detainees are well-treated and not subjected to any
form of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment. The authorities must stop holding detainees
incommunicado, confining detainees in dark cells or
subjecting them to any other unlawful treatment or
punishment prejudicial to their mental and physical
health.
** END **
Among the cases involving killings of political
and religious personalities, some of which were
referred to the Justice Council, were those of
Presidents Bashir Gemayel and Rene Ma’awwad; Kamal
Jumblat the leader the Progressive Socialist Party;
Mufti Hasan Khaled; and journalist and publisher
Salim al-Luzi.
