STL Bulletin - October 2015

8/20/2019 STL Bulletin - October 2015

1/6

As of 1 November 2015, the Monthly Bulletins of the Special ribunal for Lebanon include the last day ofhearing for which an official public transcript is available at the end of a given month. Days that are notcovered, will be included in next month’s bulletin. Tis change has been put in place in order to ensure thatthe public receives the most updated SL activity report at the earliest time possible.

Judicial developments

Te Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al. (SL-11-01)1

1On 1 October, Mr Mahmoud Assi, a vehicle collisionexpert and a manager of an insurance company inLebanon, testified before the rial Chamber. Duringhis examination-in-chief, the witness spoke about

the procedures followed by car insurance companiesin Lebanon when a traffic collision takes place. Te

witness was asked about a specific car accident whichoccurred in November 2004. He explained how and

why Mr Assi’s name was on the accident declara-tion although another expert had actually examinedthe vehicle and written the report. In particular, the

witness explained that if a client contacts him and thelocation of the accident is far away from his location,

1 Tis section provides an overview of courtroom hearings in the Ayyash

et al. case only. All the public filings in this case are available on our website: http://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/stl-11-01/filings

he would give the driver the contact details of anotherexpert who is closer to the accident area.

According to the Prosecution, the phone number that

contacted Mr Assi to report the accident is attribut-able to one of the Accused in the Ayyash et al. case, MrSalim Ayyash. Furthermore, the Prosecution presenteda disclaimer and a waiver document signed by Mr

Ayyash in relation to the compensation he receivedfrom the insurance company for the damages incurredto the vehicle in question.

October 2015Te SL Bulletin provides a monthly overview of the latest developments, news and visits to the Special ribunal

for Lebanon. It is not a judicial document with legal authority. It is one of a number of public information

documents produced by the ribunal. You can view them all at http://www.stl-tsl.org/en/news-and-press.

SLBulletin

www.stl-tsl.org

Dokter van der Stamstraat 1, 2265 BC Leidschendam, Netherlands ✦PO Box 115, 2260 AC Leidschendam, Netherlands.

For more informaon please contact the Public Informaon and Communicaons Secon: [email protected] Tel : +31 (0) 70 800 3560 / 3828 and +961 4 538 100 (Beirut)

www.twier.com/stlebanon www.facebook.com/stlebanon www.youtube.com/stlebanon www.ickr.com/stlebanon

All public transcripts in the Ayyash et al . case are availableon our website in Arabic, English and French.

http://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/stl-11-01/filingshttp://www.stl-tsl.org/en/news-and-presshttp://www.stl-tsl.org/http://www.twitter.com/stlebanonhttp://www.facebook.com/stlebanonhttp://www.youtube.com/stlebanonhttp://www.flickr.com/stlebanonhttp://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/stl-11-01/transcriptshttp://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/stl-11-01/transcriptshttp://www.flickr.com/stlebanonhttp://www.youtube.com/stlebanonhttp://www.facebook.com/stlebanonhttp://www.twitter.com/stlebanonhttp://www.stl-tsl.org/http://www.stl-tsl.org/en/news-and-presshttp://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/stl-11-01/filings


2/6

Mr Assi was not cross-examined by any of the DefenceCounsel.

On 2 October, protected witness PRH 651 testifiedvia video link before the rial Chamber. Te witnessis a senior manager for a business that manufacturesand sells furniture in Lebanon. Te witness was asked

about his company’s procedure for selling and deliv-ering furniture, a specific retail shop that used to sellthe witness’s business products, as well as about thephone numbers written on an advertisement leaflet ofthat retail shop.

PRH651 said the retail shop placed an order from hiscompany in November 2004 for a customer who theProsecution claims to be Mr Hassan Merhi, an Accusedin the Ayyash et al. case. Te witness was questionedabout documents in relation to that order. Te firstdocument was the order document, which includes the

phone number that the Prosecution attributes to MrMerhi and his family, which is provided as the contactnumber of the person who ordered the furniture. Tesecond document was the actual invoice for the sameproducts. Te third document was an invoice list thatincludes the name of the delivery driver, as well as adelivery note which allegedly bears the signature of MrMerhi. Te delivery note also indicates that one of theitems, a mattress, was returned. Another document the

witness was asked about was a second order made thesame day as the first delivery.. Tis order was made

with the same address and contact number.

Defence Counsel for Mr Merhi cross-examinedPRH651. Te witness was questioned about his busi-ness relationship with the retail shop owners from

which Mr Merhi allegedly ordered the products, thedelivery of the orders made by Mr Merhi, in additionto the witness’s company’s usual procedure in respectto returned goods.

On 5 October, the rial Chamber received evidencethat it had previously ruled admissible. Te Prose-cution addressed five issues during the hearing. Te

first issue was in relation to the statement of deceasedprotected witness PRH045, which was deemed admis-sible in the rial Chamber’s decision of 24 July 2015,pursuant to Rule 158 of the ribunal’s Rules of Proce-dure and Evidence (RPE) relating to to witnesses whoare deceased or are considered unavailable. As witnessPRH045 is subject to protective measures due tounique circumstances associated with him, the Pros-ecution and Defence Counsel for Mr Badreddinehad agreed to deal with the witness’s testimony on aconfidential basis, a procedure approved by the rial

Chamber.

Te second issue was related to the admission by therial Chamber of the statement of PRH402, who isunavailable. Te statement was admitted pursuantto Rule 158. On 14 February 2005, the witness wasin the area next to the St. Georges Hotel in Beirut

when the explosion which killed the late PM Haririand others occurred. He suffered bruises and lost his

wallet in the explosion. Te Prosecution told the rialChamber that the Lebanese authorities have no infor-mation about the whereabouts of this witness, and theProsecution had no other means to trace him.

Te third issue related to a set of 62 photographsfound to be admissible pursuant to the rial Cham-ber’s decision of 28 August 2015. Te photographs

were taken in different areas of Beirut on 8 August and7-8 October 2014. Te Prosecution motion for theadmission of these photographs was unopposed by theDefence Counsel. Te Prosecution intends to use thesephotographs to address specific issues with witnesses

who will appear at a later stage of the trial.

Te fourth item that the Prosecution had requestedto be admitted was satellite photography from theEuropean Space Imaging consisting of nine individualhigh quality photographs of eight different regions ofBeirut. Te rial Chamber found the photos admis-sible in its decision of 9 July 2015.

Finally, the rial Chamber also admitted into evidencea document obtained from the Special Investigation

Commission of the Central Bank of Lebanon inresponse to a Prosecution’s request for assistance. Tedocument contains the addresses of the Bank Audibranches in three locations in Lebanon for the years2004 and 2005. According to the Prosecution, theseaddresses are relevant for establishing the attributionof phone numbers to one of the Accused, Mr Salim

Ayyash, based on the use of phones which it alleges were used by Mr Ayyash in the areas of these threebranches, at the approximate times of recorded AMtransactions on accounts registered to Mr Ayyash.

On 14 October, the rial Chamber heard evidencefrom the Prosecution related to the location of resi-dences associated with the Accused. Te Prosecutionalleges that these residences are linked to the use ofcertain phones by the Accused, also used in relation tothe 14 February 2005 attack.

Te Prosecution presented documents related to twoproperties associated with Mr Ayyash. In the hear-ings of 15 and 16 October, the Prosecution presentedevidence on the properties of Mr Oneissi, Mr Sabraand Mr Merhi. Tis evidence enables the comparison

Document provided by the Public Informaon and Communicaons Secon of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon

2


3/6

of several locations where the relevant phones wereused, including the alleged residences of the Accused.

Furthermore, during the hearing, the Prosecutionresponded in court to the rial Chamber’s email ques-tions in relation to the “Prosecution Motion for the

Admission of Witness Statements pursuant to Rule

155 and Documents pursuant to Rule 154,” with acorrected version filed on 29 September 2015. TeProsecution explained various database-related topicsand related queries. Te rial Chamber’s Presiding

Judge, David Re made an order that the filing be reclas-sified as public.

On 14, 15 and 16 October, the rial Chamber heardoral submissions from Defence Counsel for MrBadreddine, Mr Merhi, and Mr Oneissi, the Head ofthe Defence Office, the Registry and the Prosecutionon the joint request of the Defence Counsel for Mr

Badreddine, Mr Merhi, and Mr Oneissi applying for amodification of the conditions imposed on the assign-ment of Dr Omar Nashabe. Te former President ofthe ribunal, Judge David Baragwanath, specified theconditions of Dr Nashabe’s appointment in his deci-sions of 21 December 2012 and 27 March 2013. Teformer President’s conditions were that Dr Nashabemay only provide the following support to Defenceteams: assisting with information concerning factualareas of interest; alerting Counsel to any evidentiarymaterial that they may need to collect; suggestingpotential witnesses to Counsel; cross-referencing andsummarising relevant publicly available factual mate-rials; and producing reports and memoranda further tothose activities. In the decision of 21 December 2012,the former President held that “Dr Nashabe shall betreated as a member of the public for the purposes ofaccess to the premises of the ribunal and informa-tion thereof”. On 27 March 2013, at the request ofthe Registrar, Judge Baragwanath issued a clarificationdecision stating that “Dr Nashabe should be treated asan expert consultant external to the Defence teams.”

On 14 October, the rial Chamber stated it was seekingsubmissions on two points. Te first issue was juris-diction, namely whether the rial Chamber can makethe order which is sought. Secondly, the rial Chamberasked for submissions on what action it should takeand why it should make the orders and modificationssought.

When dealing with the question of jurisdiction,Counsel for Mr Badreddine, Mr Merhi, and MrOneissi, with the support of the Head of the DefenceOffice, requested the rial Chamber to lift the restric-

tions placed on Dr Nashabe concerning access to

information and evidentiary material communicatedto him by the Defence teams. Te Registrar submittedthat the Defence teams should exhaust the remedies setforth in the former President’s decisions and go to thecurrent President, as Judge Baragwanath had issued hisdecisions in his capacity as President of the ribunal.Te Prosecution did not question the rial Chamber’s

authority to deal with this matter.

On 15 October, the rial Chamber addressed thesecond part of the submissions. Te Registrar made apreliminary submission that a full risk assessment beperformed with the cooperation of Dr Nashabe, beforeany further steps are taken, in case the rial Chamberdecides that it could intervene as suggested by theDefence Counsel.

Te rial Chamber asked the Defence teams to indicatehow Dr Nashabe could assist them in the telecommu-

nications and attribution phase of the evidence. TeDefence Counsel for Mr Badreddine, Mr Oneissi,and Mr Merhi stated that Dr Nashabe is a specialistin forensic science, is assisting them with theirresearch, and is knowledgeable about current Leba-nese events. Tey also informed the rial Chamberthat Dr Nashabe will be of assistance to the Defencetelecommunications expert in collecting informationand getting administrative documents in Lebanon.Counsel added that they would like to have informa-tion about certain companies, the location and relationbetween the phone calls, to question witnesses, andto rebut evidence which has been put forward. Teyemphasised that they need an expert to perform suchtasks, especially for the telecommunications phase ofthe Prosecution case and Dr. Nashabe has performedhis tasks well.Te Defence teams stated they would liketo continue working with him.

On 15 October, the rial Chamber continued to hearProsecution that connects certain properties to specificphones used by the Accused in or around those proper-ties. Te Prosecution presented evidence in relation to

the property it claims is associated with Mr Oneissi andshowed bank records it received from the Special Inves-tigation Commission in Lebanon in relation to MrOneissi. Te Prosecution additionally presented docu-ments concerning two real estate properties relevant toMr Merhi. Te documents came as a result of a requestfor assistance from the Lebanese Directorate Generalfor Real Estate Affairs. It also presented subscriptiondocuments from the Électricité du Liban in relation tothese properties.

On 16 October, the rial Chamber continued to

hear from the Prosecution about the properties of


3


4/6

Mr Merhi. Te Prosecution showed files it receivedfrom the General Secretariat of the Council of Minis-ters relating to housing damage compensation claimssubmitted by Mr Merhi and his father to the RebuildLebanon Recovery Project established by the Councilof Ministers of the Government of Lebanon followingthe 2006 conflict. Te Prosecution also tendered two

lease contracts for properties in Lebanon, indicatingthat the tenant’s name is Mr Merhi’s father. Te Prose-cution indicated its intent to rely on these documents,along with other evidence, to attribute phones to MrMerhi, based on the frequency these phones were usedin or around the areas of the properties in question.

Te Prosecution also relied on Rebuild LebanonRecovery Project documents, including a compensa-tion claim, to establish the location where the father ofanother Accused, Mr Sabra, lived during the relevanttime periods. Another set of documents allegedly provethe location of the home of Mr Sabra’s wife, her grand-father and her father. According to the Prosecution,these documents assist, along with other evidence, inattributing the alleged phones to Mr Sabra, based onthe frequency the phones used in or around the areasof the properties in question.

Te Legal Representative for Victims (LRV) providedhis submissions on the joint Defence request for themodification to Dr Omar Nashabe’s assignment. TeLRV, when discussing the possible impact of the modi-fication of the appointment on the victims, noted thatthe Defence has numerous opportunities to object tothe victims’ protective measures or to seek an order

permitting disclosure of their identities to an investi-gator who was not permitted to have access to thembut they have not done so. Te LRV argued that he

would oppose a blanket relaxation of the conditions ofDr Nashabe’s contract with the SL permitting himaccess to confidential material but they would acceptan application on a case-by-case basis to disclose infor-

mation provided the LRV would be consulted on itsposition.

On 23 October, the rial Chamber issued a decisionconcerning the assignment of Dr Nashabe to assistDefence Counsel in their preparations for trial. First,it considered whether, in the absence of express statu-tory regulation, a Chamber, in the interest of justiceand to guarantee a fair trial, may vary the administra-tive or judicial orders of another Judge or Chamber.Te Chamber determined that it could. Te Chamberthen considered whether it should intervene and ifit could only do so after all other available measureshave been exhausted. Te Chamber concluded thatDefence Counsel had exhausted all available remediesbefore the ribunal’s President and that the Chamberhad the ability to intervene pursuant to Article 16 ofthe Statute, Rule 130 (A). However, the Chamber wasnot persuaded that it should intervene in the mannersuggested by Defence Counsel; instead, it would eval-uate giving Dr Nashabe access to certain confidentialinformation on a case-by-case basis. Te rial Chamberagreed with the Registrar’s proposal that Dr Nashabe

undergo a security risk assessment before receivingaccess to confidential information.

In the Contempt Case against AL JADEED [CO.] S.A.L./NEW .V.S.A.L (N..V.)

and Ms Karma Mohamed ahsin Al Khayat (SL-14-05)

On 5 October, the Amicus Curiae Prosecutor ( Amicus)filed a notice of appeal2 against the Judgment of theContempt Judge, Nicola Lettieri, of 18 September2015 in the case SL-14-05. Ms Karma Al Khayat and

Al Jadeed S.A.L. were each charged in the Order in lieuof Indictment of 31 January 2014 with two counts ofcontempt and obstruction of justice under Rule 60 bisof the ribunal’s RPE.3 In the Judgment, the Judgeacquitted Ms Khayat of Count 1 and convicted her

2 Te Amicus Prosecutor Notice of Appeal on the Judgement can be

found here: http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/the-cases/

contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4429-f0001a

3 Decision in Proceedings for Contempt with Orders in Lieu of the

Indictment: http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/decision-

in-proceedings-for-contempt-with-orders-in-lieu-of-an-indictment-in-the-case-stl-14-05

under Count 2. He acquitted Al Jadeed S.A.L. of bothcounts.


4

Contempt Judge Nicola Lettieri

http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4429-f0001ahttp://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4429-f0001ahttp://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/decision-in-proceedings-for-contempt-with-orders-in-lieu-of-an-indictment-in-the-case-stl-14-05http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/decision-in-proceedings-for-contempt-with-orders-in-lieu-of-an-indictment-in-the-case-stl-14-05http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/decision-in-proceedings-for-contempt-with-orders-in-lieu-of-an-indictment-in-the-case-stl-14-05http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/decision-in-proceedings-for-contempt-with-orders-in-lieu-of-an-indictment-in-the-case-stl-14-05http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/decision-in-proceedings-for-contempt-with-orders-in-lieu-of-an-indictment-in-the-case-stl-14-05http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/decision-in-proceedings-for-contempt-with-orders-in-lieu-of-an-indictment-in-the-case-stl-14-05http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4429-f0001ahttp://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4429-f0001a


5/6


5

Under Count 1, Al Jadeed S.A.L. and Ms Khayat werecharged pursuant to Rule 60 bis (A) with knowinglyand wilfully interfering with the administration of

justice by broadcasting and/or publishing informationon purported confidential witnesses in the Ayyash etal . case, thereby undermining public confidence inthe ribunal’s ability to protect the confidentiality of

information about, or provided by, witnesses or poten-tial witnesses. Under Count 2, Al Jadeed S.A.L. andMs Khayat were charged pursuant to Rule 60 bis (A)(iii) with knowingly and wilfully interfering with theadministration of justice by failing to remove from Al

Jadeed V’s website and its Youube channel informa-tion on purported confidential witnesses in the Ayyashet al. case, thereby violating an order issued by theSL’s Pre-rial Judge on 10 August 2012.

Te Amicus’s notice identified 22 grounds of appeal,arising from supposed legal and/or factual errors in the

Judgment related to the acquittals of Ms Khayat underCount 1 and Al Jadeed S.A.L. under both counts.

On 6 October, Judge Lettieri issued a written deci-sion4 providing reasons for the Sentencing Judgment

with respect to Ms Khayat. Tis decision followed thesentencing hearing on 28 September 2015 in whichthe parties argued what they thought the appro-priate sentencing should be. During the hearing, the

Amicus asked for 100,000 Euros fine and a one-yearprison sentence for Ms Khayat. Defence Counsel forMs Khayat submitted that the conviction itself wasadequate punishment. At the end of the hearing, the

Judge sentenced Ms Khayat to a fine of 10,000 Euros.

4 Te reasons for Sentencing Judgement can be found here: http://www.

specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-

05/filings-stl-14-05/4415-f0186

On 20 October, the Amicus filed his Appeal Briefagainst the Contempt Judge’s judgment, expandingon the grounds of appeal identified in his notice ofappeal and requesting that the Appeals Panel overturnthe Judgment, in part, and enter convictions for MsKhayat under Count 1 and Al Jadeed S.A.L. underboth counts.

On 21 October, the Amicus filed a notice of appeal5 against the Sentencing Judgment. In the notice, the

Amicus provided 11 grounds of appeal arising fromalleged legal and/or factual errors by Judge Lettieri indetermining the sentence. Te Amicus requested the

Appeals Panel to correct the alleged errors and imposean appropriate sentence against Ms Khayat.

On 21 October, Defence Counsel for Ms Khayatsubmitted a notice of appeal6 against the Judgment

with respect to the conviction of Ms Khayat. In thenotice, the Defence provided five grounds of appeal,arising from alleged legal and/or factual errors by

Judge Lettieri. Defence Counsel requested the AppealsPanel to correct the errors of law, reassess the relevantevidence and reverse Ms Khayat’s conviction.

5 Te Amicus Prosecutor Notice of Appeal on sentencing of judgement

in SL-14-05 can be read on: http://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/

contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4464-f0006ap

6 Te Defence Notice of Appeal on sentencing of judgement in SL-14-

05 can be read on: http://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/

stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4465-f0007ap

In the Contempt Case against Akhbar Beirut S.A.L and Mr Ibrahim Mohamed Ali Al Amin (SL-14-06)

On 14 October, Contempt Judge Nicola Lettieriordered the trial in case SL-14-06 to start on 28

January 2016. Mr Ibrahim Mohamed Ali Al Amin and Akhbar Beirut S.A.L are each charged with one countof contempt and obstruction of justice under Rule60 bis of the ribunal’s RPE. Te initial appearances of

the Accused were held on 29 May 2014. Judge Lettierientered non-guilty pleas on behalf of the accused.

In the same order, the Judge scheduled a Pre-rialConference for 11 December 2015 at 3:30 pm (CE).

Te Appeals Panel in SL-14-05 is composed of JudgeIvana Hrdličková, Judge Janet Nosworthy and Judge

Walid Akoum.

http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/4415-f0186http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/4415-f0186http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/4415-f0186http://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4464-f0006aphttp://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4464-f0006aphttp://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4465-f0007aphttp://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4465-f0007aphttp://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4465-f0007aphttp://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4465-f0007aphttp://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4464-f0006aphttp://www.stl-tsl.org/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/appeal/4464-f0006aphttp://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/4415-f0186http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/4415-f0186http://www.specialtribunalforlebanon.com/en/the-cases/contempt-cases/stl-14-05/filings-stl-14-05/4415-f0186


6/6

News and Visits

Te President of the SL, Judge Ivana Hrdličková,visited Lebanon this month. During her visit, she held

a number of meetings with Lebanese government offi-cials and diplomats, as well as representatives of civilsociety and the media.

President Hrdličková met, among others, LebanesePrime Minister ammam Salam, Minister of Foreign

Affairs Gebran Bassil, Minister of Justice AshrafRifi, Director General of the Ministry of Justice

Judge Mayssam Noueiri, Prosecutor-General SamirHammoud, and General Abbas Ibrahim, DirectorGeneral of the General Security.

Te President participated in a panel session celebratingthe 70th anniversary of the United Nations (UN Day).She also gave a lecture at the American University ofBeirut, and inaugurated the fifth Inter-UniversityProgramme on International Criminal Law and Proce-dure (IUP-ICLP). IUP-ICLP is organised by the SLin cooperation with eight prominent Lebanese univer-

sities and the .M.C Asser Institute in Te Hague,Netherlands.

In addition to meeting with the heads of the Beirutand ripoli bar associations, the President met withBeirut-based Lebanese, Arab, and international media,and briefed them on the latest judicial developmentsat the SL.

On 22 and 23 October 2015, the Defence Office heldthe Tird International Meeting of Defence Offices

before the International Criminal Courts at theUniversity of Geneva, in partnership with the GenevaBar Association and the Faculty of Law of the Univer-

sity of Geneva. Te event gathered representatives ofDefence Offices and Sections within internationalcriminal tribunals, including François Roux , Head ofthe SL Defence Office and Héleyn Uňac, DeputyHead of the SL Defence Office, as well as lawyersand professional associations of lawyers. Te debate

over the two days allowed the participants to discussthe continuing challenges for the Defence before theinternational criminal jurisdictions.

In October, the SL received six groups of visitors.Te SL hosted a delegation of diplomats from Saudi

Arabia, a visit organized by United Nations Insti-tute for raining and Research (UNIAR). In addi-tion, students from the University of Amsterdam, theHaagse Hogeschool, the VU University of Amsterdam,the Strathmore University Law School (Kenya), andlegal interns from ADC-ICY visited the ribunal.

Te visitors had briefings with several organs about the work of the SL.

You can book a visit for a group of at least 10 people by filling in the online booking form no later than one month prior to the proposed date of visit.

www.stl-tsl.org

Dokter van der Stamstraat 1, 2265 BC Leidschendam, Netherlands ✦PO Box 115, 2260 AC Leidschendam, Netherlands.

For more informaon please contact the Public Informaon and Communicaons Secon: [email protected] Tel : +31 (0) 70 800 3560 / 3828 and +961 4 538 100 (Beirut)

www.twier.com/stlebanon www.facebook.com/stlebanon www.youtube.com/stlebanon www.ickr.com/stlebanon

SL President Judge Ivana Hrdličková and SL Vice President

Judge Ralph Riachi met with Lebanese Prime Ministerammam SalamPhoto-credit: National News Agency

Students from Strathmore University visiting the SL
http://www.stl-tsl.org/en/component/rsform/form/10-group-visit-request-formhttp://www.stl-tsl.org/http://www.twitter.com/stlebanonhttp://www.facebook.com/stlebanonhttp://www.youtube.com/stlebanonhttp://www.flickr.com/stlebanonhttp://www.flickr.com/stlebanonhttp://www.youtube.com/stlebanonhttp://www.facebook.com/stlebanonhttp://www.twitter.com/stlebanonhttp://www.stl-tsl.org/http://www.stl-tsl.org/en/component/rsform/form/10-group-visit-request-form

STL Bulletin - October 2015

Documents

Transcript of STL Bulletin - October 2015