Introduction
On 7 January 1997 Antoinette Yusuf Chahin, a Lebanese
student born in 1971, was sentenced to death, commuted
to life imprisonment with hard labour, for her alleged
involvement in the assassination of Father Sam'an Boutros
al-Khoury on 11 May 1992 in 'Ajeltoun. According to
the prosecution and court verdict, the killing of Father
Sam'an Boutros al-Khoury was planned and carried out
by the Lebanese Forces, of which Antoinette Chahin was
allegedly a member. The evidence presented in court
implicating her in this offence was extremely weak.
During her detention Antoinette was reportedly tortured,
which resulted in her hospitalisation.
Amnesty International is gravely concerned at blatantly
unfair aspects of Antoinette Chahin's trial and at reports
that she was tortured. The organization is calling for
an immediate judicial review of her conviction by an
appropriate body offering full guarantees of independence
and impartiality, including a full investigation into
her allegations of torture.
Background
The Lebanese Forces
The Lebanese Forces was the main Christian militia during
the Lebanese civil war which lasted from 1975 to 1990.
It was affiliated with the Phalange Party until the
mid-1980s after which it became politically and militarily
independent. All militias, except those fighting Israel
in south Lebanon, were disarmed in 1991 as part of the
implementation of the Ta'if Agreement of 1989 which
ended the civil war. The Lebanese Government issued
an amnesty law in 1991 pardoning those who had committed
most political crimes during the civil war. The Lebanese
Forces, under the leadership of Samir Geagea, accepted
the Ta'if Agreement and started the process of transforming
itself into a civil political party. However, it remained
in opposition and refused the ministerial posts offered
to it because of its reservations about what it considered
selective implementation of the Ta'if Agreement, especially
in relation to the withdrawal of the Syrian forces from
Lebanon.
The Church Bombing Trial
A bomb exploded killing at least 10 people in
Sayedat
al-Najat church in Lebanon on 27 February 1994.
Subsequently the government dissolved and banned the
Lebanese Forces and arrested more than one hundred of
its members, including Samir Geagea, before the prosecution's
indictment in the case was issued. Some were later released.
Antoinette Chahin was first arrested with 21 others
on 23 March 1994 in connection with the church bombing.
Her brother, Jean Chahin, was a member of the Lebanese
Forces and she was questioned about his involvement
in the bombing. The charges against her were dropped
and she was released on 5 May 1994.
Eight members of the Lebanese Forces were tried for
the church bombing by the Justice Council. [1] In July
1996 Samir Geagea was acquitted of the church bombing
charge, but sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for
"maintaining a militia in the guise of a political
party, and for dealing with military weapons and explosives".
Therefore the ban on the Lebanese Forces continued.
Jean Yusuf Chahin (Antoinette's brother), was sentenced
to death
in absentia for his alleged involvement
in the church bombing. Another defendant, Jirjis al-Khoury,
who was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour,
retracted his statements alleging that they had been
extracted under torture and duress. The court rejected
the torture claim on the basis of the medical report
and testimony of the prison doctor who stated that he
had examined the defendant during the interrogation
period and found no evidence of torture. No adequate
judicial investigation appears to have been ordered
into this allegation of torture.
The Assassination of Father Sam'an Boutros Al-khoury
Trial
Father Sam'an Boutros al-Khoury was killed on 11 May
1992 in his monastery in 'Ajeltoun. An investigation
was conducted by the investigating judge but no one
was charged. Investigation resumed again in May 1994
when Rashid Daw allegedly confessed to his involvement
in the assassination of Father al-Khoury to another
prisoner, Artin Hanna, in Rumieh Prison where he was
detained on other charges. The prison director conducted
an investigation before Rashid Daw was transferred to
Jounieh Judicial Department,
Mafrazat Jounieh
(see Procedural Irregularities below)
. Rashid
Daw allegedly confessed to his involvement in the crime
with the intention of stealing. He later named others
who reportedly took part in the crime: Jean Chahin,
George Bakhous, Jihad Abi Ramia, Sa'd Jibra'il and Antoinette
Chahin.
Sa'd Jibra'il allegedly confessed in
Mafrazat Jounieh
and again before the investigating judge, stating that
the motive for killing Father al-Khoury was that he
supplied the Lebanese Army with information about the
Lebanese Forces during the latter's war with the army
in 1989 and 1990.
Antoinette Chahin's Alleged Role in the Assassination
Antoinette Chahin was arrested on 9 June 1994 in connection
with the assassination of Father al-Khoury and stood
trial with five co-defendants before the criminal court.
She denied the charges against her. The evidence against
her was a confession by Rashid Daw who stated that her
role was to knock on the door of the monastery and when
the priest opened the door George Bakhous would kill
him. Rashid Daw claimed that he saw Antoinette Chahin
carrying a gun with a silencer, which is allegedly the
type of weapon used by members of the Lebanese Forces'
security apparatus. He also mentioned that she gave
him her identification card as a guarantee that her
brother would give him money for participating in the
operation, and that was how he knew her name. Sa'd Jibra'il
also testified that she took part in the assassination.
Both Rashid Daw and Sa'd Jibra'il later retracted their
confessions alleging that they had been extracted under
duress and that they never knew Antoinette Chahin.
The Court's Verdict
On 7 January 1997 Judge Hatem Madi issued the following
sentences on six defendants in the trial for the assassination
of Father Sam'an Boutros al-Khoury:
- Antoinette
Yusuf Chahin, death sentence, commuted to life
imprisonment with hard labour, for participating
in the crime. The prosecutor considered that
Antoinette Chahin had had a leading role in
carrying out the crime by enabling George Bakhous
to shoot Father al-Khoury.
- George
Hamid Bakhous, death sentence in absentia,
for killing Father al-Khoury.
- Jean
Yusuf Chahin, death sentence in absentia,
for planning and participating in the assassination.
- Sa'd
Elias Jibra'il, Jihad Adib Abi Ramia and Rashid
Nasri Daw were each sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment
with hard labour for participating in the crime.
- In
addition, the defendants were collectively liable
to pay 80 million Lebanese liras (approximately
US$ 54,000) as personal compensation.
Antoinette
Chahin's Medical Examination
The forensic report on Antoinette Chahin was submitted
by Dr Elias al-Sayegh to the investigating judge
Justice Fawzi Dagher on 20 June 1994. Dr al-Sayegh
had examined Antoinette Chahin on 17 June 1994,
eight days after she had been arrested. He stated
that she suffered from bruises on her arms apparently
where she had been suspended from the ceiling, a
large bruise on the left foot and ankle as a result
of a blow from a solid object that dated back to
approximately one week before the examination and
swelling in her right foot from scalding with very
hot water. Antoinette Chahin said she had been beaten
while suspended from her arms and that this caused
internal bleeding in her uterus. (See Amnesty International's
communication with the Lebanese Government below.)
Antoinette Chahin was transferred to hospital several
times during her detention and was reportedly treated
by the Lebanese Red Cross for the swelling in her
feet.
The Unfair Trial
The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) to which Lebanon acceded in 1972,
as well as the Lebanese Code of Criminal Procedures
(CCP) of 1948 stipulate certain principles and procedures
to guarantee fair trial for those accused of a criminal
offence. In the case of Antoinette Chahin and her
co-defendants, there are a number of aspects which
clearly violate the principles of fair trial as
laid down in Article 14 of the ICCPR and other international
standards.
Procedural Irregularities in the Investigation
A number of procedural irregularities reportedly
occurred in the conduct of the preliminary and pre-trial
investigations, some of which contravened Articles
of the Lebanese CCP and penal code. For example:
- the
defendants were beaten by security officers,
a crime under Article 401 of the Lebanese penal
code;
- the
public prosecutor carried out an investigation
despite the fact that the case was in the hands
of the investigating judge;
- the
prolonged pre-trial detention of defendants
beyond the period permitted by law (as per Articles
102 and 103 of the CCP);
- the
interrogation of one of the defendants, Sa'd
Jibra'il, before the investigating judge without
the presence of his lawyer, in contravention
of Article 70 of the CCP;
- the
fact that two defendants were allegedly forced
to 'reconstruct' the crime without the presence
of their lawyers;
- the
absence of corroborating evidence to confirm
the testimonies of Rashid Daw and Sa'd Jibra'il.
The
court acknowledged that there had been procedural
irregularities in the conduct of the investigation
by the prison director and the public prosecutor
because the investigating judge was the only person
authorized to conduct the investigation. However,
the court decided to ignore this irregularity because
the defendants later repeated their alleged confessions
before the investigating judge. The court also stated
that the prolonged detention of the defendants for
investigation did not affect the outcome of the
investigation.
Rights of the Accused
- Paragraph
2 of Article 9 of the ICCPR states that:
"Anyone who is arrested shall be informed
at the time of arrest of the reasons for his
arrest and shall be promptly informed of any
charges against him." Article 261 of
the CCP states that the arrest warrant is not
valid unless it includes the charges against
the defendant.
Antoinette
Chahin was arrested, in connection with this case,
on 9 June 1994. However, a warrant was issued only
on 16 June 1994. A year later her lawyer made an
official complaint stating that "until now
the charges against Antoinette Chahin are not known
to us" and asked for her release. Antoinette
Chahin and her co-defendants were not officially
indicted until 17 October 1995, sixteen months after
their arrest and detention. Antoinette Chahin spent
the first month of her detention in solitary confinement
with no access to her family (though her lawyer
was allowed to see her). It was during this time
that the alleged torture took place.
- Paragraph
3(e) of Article 14 of the ICCPR gives the accused
the right to "examine ... the witnesses
against him and to obtain the attendance and
examination of witnesses on his behalf under
the same conditions as witnesses against him".
Article 301 of the CCP gives the defendant or
his/her lawyer the right to cross-examine witnesses.
There
are many incidents which suggest that these standards
have not been followed in Antoinette Chahin's case.
For example, the defence lawyers requested a number
of defence witnesses, yet none of them appeared
before the court which continued its proceedings
without them. The court, however, allowed the testimony
of Father Aqlimous al-Hakim, the only person present
at the monastery when the crime was committed, who
died soon afterwards in 1992 and therefore did not
appear before the court. Accordingly, the defendants
and their lawyers were not able to cross-examine
the witness in question.
- Paragraph
3(g) of Article 14 of the ICCPR states that
a defendant should "not be compelled
to testify against himself or to confess guilt".
Article 401 of the Lebanese Penal Code prohibits
torture and provides for punitive measures against
officials found responsible for torture or ill-treatment.
Two
defendants, Rashid Daw and Sa'd Jibra'il, stated
in court that they had been tortured during the
investigation, and that they made their confessions
because of torture. They also stated that they were
compelled to 'reconstruct' the crime on 22 June
1994 when they were taken to the scene, without
their defence lawyers. Both Rashid Daw and Sa'd
Jibra'il retracted their testimonies and refused
to 'reconstruct' the act of the crime when they
were asked to do so for the second time, four months
later, in the presence of their defence lawyers.
Antoinette Chahin has also said that she was tortured
in order to compel her to confess her guilt. The
medical report mentioned above which recorded physical
traces consistent with her alleged torture was presented
to the court by her defence lawyer.
The court stated that even if there had been "harsh
treatment" against the defendants by the investigating
officers, this did not affect the outcome of the
investigation. The court mentioned that
"the
alleged beating of Antoinette Chahin did not make
her change her testimony which she stuck to throughout
the investigation". Antoinette Chahin's
testimony was that she had no involvement in the
crime. Furthermore, the court did not discuss the
retraction of the confessions of Rashid Daw and
Sa'd Jibra'il despite their being the basis of the
public prosecutor's case against the defendants.
In the opinion of the Human Rights Committee [2],
"[t]he law should require that evidence
provided by means of such methods [which violate
ICCPR articles prohibiting torture and ill-treatment]
or any other form of compulsion is wholly unacceptable"
[3]. Furthermore, the Human Rights Committee argued
that
"... the law must prohibit the use
of admissibility in judicial proceedings of statements
or confessions obtained through torture or other
prohibited treatment" [4] Article 12 of
the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons
from being Subjected to Torture and other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states
that:
"Any statement which is established
to have been made as a result of torture or other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
may not be invoked as evidence against the person
concerned or against any other person in the proceedings."
Principle 6 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence
of the Judiciary entitles and requires the judiciary
"to ensure that judicial proceedings are
conducted fairly and that the rights of the parties
are respected".
Not only did the court failed to adequately address
and investigate these torture allegations, but it
argued that "even if there was harsh treatment
this did not affect the outcome of the investigation".
The seriousness of this court verdict is twofold:
1) It amounts to a court of law tolerating duress
and harsh treatment against detainees;
2) The main body of evidence in this case was been
built, almost entirely, aroun confessions allegedly
extracted under torture.
Presumption of Innocence
- Paragraph
2 of Article 14 of the ICCPR states that "everyone
charged with a criminal offence shall have the
right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law." The Human Rights
Committee stated that by reason of the presumption
of innocence, "the burden of proof of
the charge is on the prosecution and the accused
has the benefit of doubt [5]".
As
pointed out above, the main incriminating 'evidence'
was the confessions of the defendants Rashid Daw
and Sa'd Jibra'il
who later retracted
their testimonies saying that they were extracted
under torture. The court did not seek corroborating
evidence to support these confessions, and the retractions
were ignored. In examining the main body of evidence
(the testimonies of Rashid Daw and Sa'd Jibra'il),
the court overlooked the contradictory statements
made particularly by Rashid Daw, who changed his
story three times before giving the testimony that
he and the other co-defendants were responsible
for the politically-motivated killing of Father
Sam'an al-Khoury. This testimony itself was later
retracted before the court as mentioned earlier.
The court convicted Antoinette Chahin and her co-defendants
primarily on the basis of the following:
- the
confessions of two defendants that were later
retracted and which were never substantiated
with other supporting evidence;
- the
alleged membership of Antoinette Chahin in the
Lebanese Forces' security apparatus. This allegation
was denied by Antoinette and was not proven
by any other evidence apart from the same retracted
testimonies of Rashid Daw and Sa'd Jibra'il.
Finally,
the court mentioned that Antoinette failed to rebut
the confessions of Rashid Daw and Sa'd Jibra'il
against her. Rather than putting the burden of proof
of the charges on the prosecution as both the ICCPR
and Lebanese law stipulates, the court seems to
have expected the defendants to prove their innocence.
Amnesty International's Communications with the
Lebanese Government
Amnesty International delegates submitted a memorandum
to the Minister of Justice in September 1996 which
included the organization's concerns over the allegations
of torture by Antoinette Chahin and requested the
results of the investigation into these allegations.
Public Prosecutor 'Adnan 'Addoum issued a press
release in February 1997, apparently in response
to the memorandum, mentioning that Antoinette Chahin
claimed that she had been tortured during the investigation
at the hands of security officers and that the security
officers had denied under oath that the defendant
had been tortured. Mr. 'Addoum also stated that
"the forensic report confirmed that there was
no evidence that any of her symptoms were a result
of torture". Amnesty International received
the same response from the Lebanese Government in
April 1997.
Amnesty International has a copy of Antoinette Chahin's
forensic report and it does not include the confirmation
mentioned by Mr. 'Addoum. The organization believes
that these allegations of torture have not been
properly investigated by the Lebanese authorities
and is again calling for an independent and impartial
investigation the results of which should be made
public as required by international standards.
Amnesty International submitted its concerns on
this case to the Human Rights Committee before which
Lebanon appeared in April 1997. In its concluding
observations the Committee stated that:
"The
Committee expresses concern over well substantiated
allegations of acts of torture and cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment committed by the State
party's police, Lebanese security forces and non-Lebanese
security forces operating within the State party's
territory, the occurrence of arbitrary arrest
and detention, searches operated without warrants,
abusive treatment of individuals deprived of their
liberty, and violations of the right to a fair
trial. It has noted the [Lebanese Government]
delegation's statement that no such acts of torture
and ill-treatment are committed by the Lebanese
police and security forces; notwithstanding this
statement, it urges the State party to investigate
the credible allegations of instances of ill-treatment
and torture which have been brought to the Committee's
attention."
Conclusion
and Recommended Actions
Amnesty International believes that the trial of
Antoinette Chahin and her co-defendants was seriously
flawed and is calling for Antoinette Chahin and
her co-defendants to be re-tried in accordance with
international fair trial standards. Amnesty International
is also calling for an impartial investigation into
the allegations of torture by Antoinette Chahin
and other co-defendants in this case.
****
(1) The Justice Council is a special court that
takes up national security and political cases referred
to it by the cabinet. Amnesty International and
the Human Rights Committee have expressed concern
over the absence of an appeal process for decisions
passed by the Justice Council.
(2) The treaty monitoring body of the ICCPR
(3) Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 13.
(4) Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 20.
(12).
(5) Ibid.
Taken from
Lebanese-Forces.org
Main Sections
