Dotting the I’S & Crossing the T’S
The International Court refused the testimony of Jumblatt
Written by Nasser Kandil,
Listening to the Deputy Walid Jumblatt is interesting, especially when his interventions are full of jokes, but it is a reason for boredom, tiredness, and the increase of the acidity in the stomach when it turned into a moody reading of the history that loops from era to era, from one stage to another, from a factor to another in a discretionary way that is away from respecting the minds of the recipients particularly the judges that are supposed to be personalities that represent first and foremost a combination of the mind and morals, since these are the characteristics of the judge according to Socrates.
When the General Hikmat Al Shihabi abandoned his responsibilities in Syria in 1998 while he was approaching the legal age as a decision from him to refuse to work under the leadership of the President Bashar Al-Assad who took over the rule in the year 2000, then it is a right of the judge to ask, was the date of the death of the President Hafez Al-Assad known in advance by the General Al Shihabi? And was the abandonment of the General Al-Shihabi a proactive request for an exemption or reaching the legal age? Moreover, the Deputy Walid Jumblatt says that Al Shihabi was his closer friend in Syria, but his speech was an example of the offense towards the friends in their absence which Jumblatt perfects subtly any way, so this is not a testimony that suits a court that depends on counterfeiting the realities. Al Shihabi has abandoned the rule in 1998, while the President Hafez Al Assad in April 2000 was engaged in the most difficult international negotiations that assembled him with the American President Bill Clinton. Al Shihabi could stay till the year 2015 leading Syria as long as the talking about his succession has begun in 1983, but he continues leading Syria for seventeen years, so who could not ensure his stay for another seventeen?
What Jumblatt has said about the novel of the assassination of his father and his passing over for the account of the interest, either because he considered it personal, political, or national case is something else of revealing the truth, and this what the court is concerned about as an advantage which the witness must have, but he himself has said that he was not honest to this required advantage exclusively, it is like a rubber, he formed according to the mood of his reading, which he called the interest, this is applied on his reading about his meetings with the President Bashar Al-Assad and his own conclusions of the attitude of the President Al-Assad towards the President Rafik Al-Hariri which is not suitable to be written on Twitter, so how it benefits to be a testimony before the Court, but the Court has to feel that it is vulnerable to cheating by a witness, because its subject is not the accusation of Syria which was hidden from the indictment. Therefore, there was not any courageous judge among the others who have stood and told him, Mr.Jumblatt . Do you have what benefits the court either a confirmation or a denial of the accusation that is attributed to some members of Hezbollah about the assassination of the Prime Minister Al-Hariri, then Jumblatt will say” Sorry according to the interest, I do not have anything against Hezbollah but against Syria, so could you please grant me your platform to address the media if my speech was not useful for your legal case? “
The Lebanese judges remember suddenly with the awakening of the conscience that the witness Walid Jumblatt is one of the beneficiaries of the Act of Amnesty about the crimes of the civil war with the Agreement of Taif. So one of them has asked a witness “Was Mr. Jumblatt one the beneficiaries of the Act of Amnesty about the war crimes, the crimes against the humanity, crimes of killing and physical assault which was issued at the end of the war in Lebanon, and if this issued law did not cover him, then will he think after he had taken an oath that he will be chased for this kind of crimes?” and because the answer is yes, however the Lebanese judge who did not pay attention to his task as a judge, because he fell asleep twice in the session and his colleague has awakened him, has called for holding a bench immediately to discuss about the acceptance to listen to the testimony of a witness that has benefited from the Act of Amnesty of the war crimes, wars against humanity and genocide crimes. Because without this amnesty certainly he would be a wanted today, but if there was an international court for these crimes which blasted Lebanon for two decades, then the witness will be the most prominent wanted by this court, so the court decided to cancel the testimonies of Jumblatt from its records, and to drop the quality of witness about him, canceling the remaining dates for his court appearance, because of the loss of these legal and civil advantages which are supposed to be available at the witnesses.
The Lebanese judge has asked in an anticipation, is there any reordered witness in the lists of the court, his name is Samir Geagea?
Translate by Lina Shehadeh,
2015-05-06 | عدد القراءات 1853
