This Thursday an international tribunal seeking to uncover the truth about the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in 2005 finally has its first person in the dock.
But that person is not a suspect in the atrocity, which also killed 21 others, nor an accomplice or indeed anyone suspected of involvement in the crime for which the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was established six years ago. It is instead a journalist and her television station. The accusation against them? Uncovering flaws in the Tribunal’s proceedings and for which they are now facing contempt of court charges and – in the case of the journalist herself – the possibility of a prison sentence.
The UN’s Special Tribunal for Lebanon at The Hague accuses Al Jadeed Television and its Vice-Chairman, Karma Khayat, of contempt of court. Why? Because, after receiving the names of witnesses, the station contacted them and aired a series of anonymous interviews with those who were prepared to speak. The objective was to illustrate the court’s inability to conceal the identify of – and therefore protect – key witnesses. The broadcast of these interviews by Al-Jadeed highlighted this problem for all to see. Context is important here: As a highly politicized society, there are people within Lebanon with a strong vested interest in ensuring witnesses do not testify. The court’s ability to bring successful prosecutions therefore particularly depends on its ability to protect its witnesses.
The consequences, if Karma and her station are found guilty of the charges brought against them, are worrying. International jurisdictions such as the Special Tribunal for Lebanon unquestionably represent and serve the public interest. But the right of journalists to report independently on issues of public interest – which includes the operations of international courts – must also be defended. There is a very strong public duty argument, therefore, that anyone who exposes flaws in a witness protection scheme ergo possible threats to the safety of witnesses – are themselves serving the public interest.
The way a court, be it international or domestic, carries out its mandate is clearly something the media should pay attention to and report on: it’s a basic tenet of good, investigative journalism and something in which Al Jadeed has strong credentials. Indeed, here in the U.S. you’d be forgiven for not having heard of them, but let us be clear: Al Jadeed is rigorously independent and renowned for the vitality of its reporting; for example, being awarded the Thomson Foundation Prize for Investigative Journalism in the Arab World in 2010 – no mean feat.
Litigation in this case could have a potentially chilling impact on future coverage of the Tribunal in Lebanon, to the detriment of both the Tribunal itself and the Lebanese people, who expect so much from a fair and transparent administration of justice to help bring closure to a traumatic period in their history. Even if Karma Khayat and Al Jadeed are found not guilty one cannot help but feel that the threat of prosecution will loom large over any journalist who considers whether to expose other flaws in the operation of this or any other international court.
Indeed, as someone who served as the first spokesperson of the International Criminal Court and before that covered other UN ad hoc tribunals as a journalist, I know only too well the role independent media play in garnering support for such courts. This can only be achieved if there is an understanding of each other’s role and a willingness to explore alternatives venues to resolve disputes. The heavy-handed approach taken by the STL is likely to undermine this relationship.
Looking back at my experience at the ICC, I can recall the incident in which confidential information was leaked to the media concerning the Court’s investigation into the rebel movement in Uganda, the Lord’s Resistance Army. The ICC issued sealed warrants of arrest against five rebel commanders – highly sensitive information – details of which were leaked to and subsequently published by the media. In such instances, it is reasonable for a court to do its utmost to protect sensitive information and prevent further unauthorised disclosure, rather than shift the blame to the journalists reporting on it. In the case of the ICC’s leak, the court saw no useful purpose to be served by attempting to antagonise journalists. It is unfortunate that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon hasn’t taken a similar approach.
It is not uncommon in many parts of the world for journalists to be dragged to courts for criticising the failings of those in authority. But it is unusual when it’s before an international court which is expected to uphold the highest standards in transparency and fairness; and even more so one operating under the mandate of the United Nations – the custodian of fundamental human rights and freedoms. In the U.S. the First Amendment liberates the media to freely challenge the powerful. Even the UN, the organisation that oversees the STL, adopted the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The judge overseeing proceedings against Karma Khayat and Al Jadeed would do well to reflect on that.