![]() Regarding the bill, the first article stipulates that “Irrespective of any other definition, ‘crimes of terrorism’ shall mean any destructive act, organized or unorganized, executed by a person or group of persons, by any means, with the goal of intimidating society and of harming its security or the economic, social, or political security of the state and undermining civil and national peace”. There is no international agreement on a unified definition of terrorism some international documents merely specify some components of terrorism. Some commentators consider establishing an objective definition of terrorism impossible and have warned against attempting to do so. Expanding the Definition of “Terrorism”Įstablishing a precise definition of terrorism is very hard because of the numerous forms it may take in terms of nature, goals, and means employed, as well as its strong political and ideological character. There is also a large discrepancy between the stated goal of restricting the jurisdiction of the military court to trying military personnel on the one hand, and the bill’s text, on the other.ġ. ![]() Subsequently, there is concern that the parallel judicial structure, supposedly a specialized judiciary, will slide towards or become a kind of exceptional judiciary, which would totally negate the advertised promises. However, the problem stems from the bill’s inclusion of a broad definition of terrorism and its establishment of a structure of parallel judicial organization whose judges are, to a certain extent, appointed via procedures that differ from those used in the regular judiciary. From a rights perspective, these are welcomed moves. The latter manifested in the propositions to abolish the Justice Council and to transfer broad competences from the Military Court to the proposed specialized court. ![]() The bill’s mandating reasons cited, most importantly, its inclusion of a “precise and modern definition of the crime of terrorism” and its preference for “specialized criminal courts over exceptional courts” for trying crimes of terrorism and major crimes. In his view, the bill “puts Lebanese justice in total harmony with international justice”. In the wake of the decision to release Samaha on January 15, 2016, Rifi referred his bill -titled “Establishing Courts and Departments Specialized in Cases of Terrorism and Major Crimes” and dated December 22, 2015- to the Council of Ministers. ![]() Most prominently, then-minister of justice Ashraf Rifi did not hesitate to “rebuke the military court” following its preliminary ruling, signaling his intent to submit a bill to prevent the exceptional courts from trying civilians by abolishing these bodies. Unfulfilled notion definition series#The rulings issued in the case of Michel Samaha provoked a series of angry reactions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |