Nadia BERNAZ
As I discussed in a
previous post, the Appeals Panel of
the Special Tribunal for Lebanon unexpectedly decided in October that
the Tribunal has jurisdiction over corporations in contempt proceedings. The
decision was taken in relation to case STL-14-05, a contempt case against a
news corporation, New TV S.A.L., and Ms Karma Khayat, the company’s Deputy Head
of News and Political Programmes Manager. They are both accused of an offence
against the administration of justice for having disclosed names of witnesses
of the Tribunal in a TV programme.
Why
did the contempt judge deliberately choose to disregard the Appeals Panel’s
decision?
1.
In his view, it is a highly debatable decision, with which he strongly
disagrees [para. 35-65]. In a nutshell, he considered that the Appeals Panel
was wrong in their interpretation of the word “person”, that their use of
analogy was improper, that the lack of existing legal precedents was highly
problematic and that it was wrong to have recourse to teleological
interpretation.
2.
He nevertheless acknowledged that he may not have a choice and may be bound to
follow the Appeals Panel decision, whether or not he agrees with it [para. 66].
3.
In the end he decided that he was not bound by the Appeals Panel’s decision,
and he put forward four reasons for this:
a/
because it is an isolated, and indeed unique decision. No other international
tribunal has ever prosecuted a corporation for contempt [para. 67].
b/
because there is no stare decisis rule
before international criminal tribunals so, being asked to rule on the
STL-14-06 case, he is formally not bound by an Appeal Panel’s decision in the
STL-14-05 case [para. 68-71].
c/
because the decision of the 3-judge Appeals Panel was not unanimous but instead
included a detailed and compelling dissenting opinion [para. 72].
d/
because in his view the STL-14-06 case can be distinguished from the STL-14-05 case.
To him, not prosecuting Akhbar Beirut S.A.L. in the
STL-14-06 case would not lead to impunity (avoiding impunity was one of the
reasons why the Appeals Panel held that the Tribunal should have jurisdiction
over corporations) because Mr Al Amin, the newspaper’s editor in-chief and
chairman of the board of directors, is also an accused. Although it is not
entirely clear, I assume he considers that the STL-14-05 is different in that
respect because the natural person charged with contempt in this case, Ms Karma
Khayat, is “only” Deputy Head of News and Political Programmes Manager, and not
chairman of the board of directors, and therefore cannot be said to represent
the company as such. Arguably, it would be wrong to have her “pay” for the acts
committed, and to leave the company off the hook.
This
important decision is now likely to be appealed and the Appeals Panel will have
to look at the issue of jurisdiction over corporate defendants once again.
Watch this space for more on this when the Appeal Decision comes out.
- Retrouvez cet article sur le blog de l'auteur Rights as Usual.
Aucun commentaire :
Enregistrer un commentaire