|
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.
KEYWORDS:
This report summarizes a 13
page document (6,214 words), Lebanon Samir
Gea’gea and Jirjis al-Khouri: Torture and unfair trial (AI
Index: MDE 18/003/2004) issued by Amnesty International in November 2004. Anyone wishing for
further details or to take action on this issue should consult the
full document. An extensive range of our materials is available at
http://www.amnesty.org and Amnesty International news releases can
be received by email:
http://www.amnesty.org/email/email_updates.html
INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT, 1 EASTON STREET, LONDON WC1X
0DW, UNITED KINGDOM
 |
 |
| Samir Gea’gea after arrest. © private
|
Jirjis
al-Khouri, 1992. © private |
Lebanon
Samir Gea’gea’ and Jirjis
al-Khouri: Torture and unfair trial
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.
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.
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.
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:
·
Incommunicado detention in underground cells
of about three by two metres without access to fresh air or natural
light;
·
Being
stripped naked;
·
Blindfolding, hand-cuffing and tying of
hands behind the back;
·
Prolonged interrogation for hours, mostly
during the night;
·
Beating on different parts of the body;
·
Crushing of toes;
·
Pulling out of hair;
·
Exposure to screams of other detainees being
tortured;
·
Being
threatened that female relatives would be attacked and
raped;
·
Being
forced to remain for prolonged periods in fixed positions;
·
Being
subjected to electric shocks;
·
The ballanco (hanging by the wrists
which are tied behind the back);
·
Having one’s religious beliefs
denigrated;
·
Being
prevented from praying or having access to priests;
·
Prolonged suspension in contorted positions
while being beaten with sticks and cables on the feet;
·
Deprivation of sleep, food and drink for
prolonged periods;
·
Denial of access to the toilet except once
during the day, and being forced to use containers during the
night.
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.
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.".
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.
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.
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.
|