prosecutor v. ayyash, june 2020, 30 july 2020 (lrv-hamade … · 2020. 9. 10. · 1 prosecutor...

victims (attack against Mr Hawi): Mr Antonios Abou Kasm

Legal representative of participating victims (attack against Mr El-Murr): Mr Adel Nassar

1 Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/PT/TC, F0146, Defence preliminary motion challenging jurisdiction pursuant to Rules 11 (C) and 90 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 3 June 2020 ("Defence preliminary motion"). 2 Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/PT/TC, F0166, Prosecutor's response to Defence preliminary motion challenging jurisdiction pursuant to Rules 11 (C) and 90 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 24 June 2020 ("Prosecution response"). 3 Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/PT/TC, F0190, Les observations du representant legal des victimes 3 en reponse a !'exception prejudicielle d'incompetence presentee par la defense, 30 July 2020 ("LRV-El-Murr observations"); Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/PT/TC, F0191, Observations on the "Defence Preliminary Motion Challenging Jurisdiction pursuant to Rules l l(C) and 90 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence" dated 3 June 2020, 30 July 2020 ("LRV-Hamade observations"). 4 Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/1/PTJ, F0012, Public redacted indictment, 14 June 2019 ("connected case indictment" or "indictment").

Case No. STL-18-10/PT/TC 1 of39 10 September 2020

5 Statement by the President of the Security Council, S/PRST/2005/4, 15 February 2005; Letter dated 24 March 2005 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, S/2005/203, 24 March 2005. 6 S/RES/1595 (2005), para. 1. 7 S/RES/1644 (2005), para. 7. 8 S/RES/1644 (2005), para. 6. 9 Report of the Secretary-General on the establishment of a Special Tribunal for Lebanon, S/2006/893, 15 November 2006 ("Secretary-General's report of 15 November 2006"), para. 11.


for Lebanon of 10 June 2007 ("Agreement"), annexed to Security Council Resolution 1757, S/RES/1757 (2007); Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., STL-l l-Ol/PT/AC/AR90.l, F0020, Decision on the Defence appeals against the Trial Chamber's "Decision on the defence challenges to the jurisdiction and legality of the Tribunal", 24 October 2012 ("Appeals Chamber decision on legality"), para. 26. 13 Agreement, art. 19 (2); Third report of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to Security Council resolution 1757 (2007), S/2008/734, 26 November 2008, paras 21-22. 14 Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., STL-11-01/1/PTJ, FOOO 1, Submission of an indictment for confirmation (Rule 68), 17 January 2011. The indictment was subsequently amended several times, the last amended version being the following: Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., STL-11-01/T/TC, F2720, Amended consolidated indictment, 12 July 2016 ("Hariri attack indictment"). 15 Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., STL-11-01/l/PTJ, F0012, Decision relating to the examination of the indictment of 10 June 2011 issued against Mr Salim Jamil Ayyash, Mr Mustafa Amine Badreddine, Mr Hussein Hassan Oneissi & Mr Assad Hassan Sabra, 28 June 2011.


18 Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/I/PTJ (cross filed from STL-11-02/CCS/PTJ), F0055, Public redacted version of Prosecutor's Connected Cases Submission dated 30 June 2011, 23 September 2019 ("Prosecution's connected case submission"). 19 Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/1/PTJ (cross-filed from STL-11-02/CCS/PTJ), F003 l, Public redacted version of"Decision on the Prosecutor's connected case submission of30 June 2011" of5 August 2011, 16 September 2019 ("Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision"). 20 The Pre-Trial Judge partially confirmed the indictment on 15 May 2019 and ordered the submission of a revised version of the indictment, which on 19 June 2019 he declared in conformity with his decision of 15 May 2019: Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/I/PTJ, F0003, Version corrigee de la « Version publique expurgee de la "Decision relative a l' examen de l' acte d 'accusation du 14 decembre 2018 etabli a l' encontre de M. Salim Jamil Ayyash" datee du 15 Mai 2019 » du 16 septembre 2019, 1 September 2020; Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/1/PTJ, F0015, Public redacted version of the "Decision on the 14 June 2019 version of the indictment and the documents filed pursuant to the decision of 15 May 2019", dated 19 June 2019, 16 September 2019.


21 Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/1/TC, F0090, Decision to hold trial in absentia, 5 February 2020. 22 Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/PT/PTJ, FOl 18, Order suspending deadlines, 13 March 2020. 23 Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/PT/PTJ, F0140, Fifth order suspending deadlines, 14 May 2020. 24 Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/PT/PTJ, F0134, Order setting a time-limit for the possible submission of a preliminary motion challenging jurisdiction under Rules 11 (C) and 90 (A) (i) of the Rules, 1 May 2020. 25 See fn 1 and 2 above. 26 At the Defence's request, the Trial Chamber increased the word limit for the preliminary motion: Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/PT/TC, F0137, Decision on Defence requests for authorisation to file a consolidated Rule 11 (C) preliminary motion and extension of word limit, 8 May 2020. 27 Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/PT/TC, F0182, Decision on request from legal representative of victims to submit observations to Defence preliminary motion challenging jurisdiction, 16 July 2020 ; Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/PT/TC, FOl 77, Demande d'autorisation de soumettre des observations, 9 July 2020. 28 See fn 3 above.


28. The third provision is Rule 90, which governs the disposal of preliminary motions. Rule 90

(A) (i) identifies motions which challenge jurisdiction as one of four categories of preliminary

motions. Rule 90 (E) then specifies:

For the purpose of paragraphs (A) (i) and (B) (i), a motion challenging jurisdiction refers exclusively to a motion that challenges an indictment on the ground that it does not relate to the subject-matter, temporal or territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal, including that it does not relate to the Hariri Attack or an attack of a similar nature and gravity that is connected to it in accordance with the principles of criminal justice.


29 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, para. 27. 30 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, para. 13; Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., STL-11-01/1, F0936, Interlocutory decision on the applicable law: terrorism, conspiracy, homicide, perpetration, cumulative charging, 16 February 2011 ("Interlocutory decision of 16 February 2011 "). 31 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 331, entered into force on 27 January 1980 ("Vienna Convention"). 32 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, paras 12-13. 33 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, para. 12. 34 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, paras 28-29. 35 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, paras 30-32.


-------- - -- ---- ·------·-- ---·-· ----- ----- --- ---_1_---- -- ------ -- ---- ------ ----------~

attacks were prim a facie of a similar nature and gravity to the attack of 14 February 2005, 43

36 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, para. 3 5. 37 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, paras 35-36. 38 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, para. 3 8. 39 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, paras 39-69. 40 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, para. 78. 41 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, paras 79-80. 42 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, paras 87, 103, 119. 43 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, paras 134-140.


1 .. -I.,, Ul.,,1.,,l1>1Ull Ull Ull.,, U11> Ul

attacks constituted a threat to international peace and security, whereas the Defence considers

that this approach contravenes the Appeals Chamber's holding that the "finding of relevant

51 Defence preliminary motion, para. 6. 52 Defence preliminary motion, para. 5. 53 Defence preliminary motion, para. 30. 54 Defence preliminary motion, paras 31, 50-51. 55 Defence preliminary motion, paras 50-51. 56 Defence preliminary motion, paras 33-34.


procedure rules onjoinder from two common law jurisdictions, namely the United States and

England and Wales, and concludes that both common law and civil law jurisdictions requires

specific, not general, factual linkages between otherwise separate cases. 62 The Defence also

57 Defence preliminary motion, paras 19, 33-34, 53, 117-118. 58 Defence preliminary motion, para 53. 59 Defence preliminary motion, para. 44. 60 Defence preliminary motion, paras 45-49, 57-74. 61 Defence preliminary motion, paras 46-49. 62 Defence preliminary motion, paras 75-88.

Case No. STL-18-10/PT/TC 11 of 39 10 September 2020

(d) Perpetrators and pattern of the attacks (modus operandi): the Defence states

that it is not able to provide in-depth and final submissions on these two elements

for lack of expert advice and other information which will come to light only in

63 Defence preliminary motion, paras 48-54, 58-88, 101. 64 Defence preliminary motion, paras 5, 89. 65 Defence preliminary motion, para. 90. 66 Defence preliminary motion, paras 91-97. 67 Defence preliminary motion, paras 98-99.

Case No. STL-18-10/PT/TC 12of39 10 September 2020

resulting size of the crater; and the material damages caused. Taking into consideration all

68 Defence preliminary motion, para. 8. 69 Defence preliminary motion, paras 100-104. 70 Defence preliminary motion, paras 103-104. 71 Defence preliminary motion, paras 32, 106-130,162. 72 Defence preliminary motion, para. 11 7. 73 Defence preliminary motion, para. 121. 74 Defence preliminary motion, paras 123-127. 75 Defence preliminary motion, paras 128-130.


request for reconsideration, not by preliminary motion.81 Moreover, a preliminary motion

challenging jurisdiction is a legal challenge, and not an evidentiary one. 82 The Trial Chamber

76 Defence preliminary motion, paras 123-161. 77 Defence preliminary motion, paras 164-165. 78 Defence preliminary motion, para. 8, fn 9. 79 Defence preliminary motion, paras 8, 100, 164. 80 Prosecution response, paras 1, 4-11. 81 Prosecution response, paras 6-7. 82 Prosecution response, para. 8.

Case No. STL-18-10/PT/TC 14of39 10 September 2020

the Statute, not the domestic provisions, are relevant to determining whether other attacks are

"connected in accordance with the principles of criminal justice". According to the

83 Prosecution response, para. 8. 84 Prosecution response, paras 9-11. 85 Prosecution response, para. 13. 86 Prosecution response, paras 14-15. 87 Prosecution response, para. 18. 88 Prosecution response, paras 20-32.


particular, the nature of the victims, all prominent Lebanese political figures,

with common political views), that relate to a "connected purpose" behind the

89 Prosecution response, para. 29. 90 Prosecution response, paras 25-26. 91 Prosecution response, para. 26-28. 92 Prosecution response, paras 34-35. 93 Prosecution response, para. 36.


R024337

STL-18-1 O/PT/TC F0203/2020091O/R024320-R024 359/EN/af

attack of 14 February 2005 and the three other attacks, materializing in a project

aimed at political murders.94

(c) Nature of the victims targeted: the Prosecution argues that the Defence

mischaracterizes the connection between the targeted victims of the three attacks

and Mr Hariri, who had in common the fact of being prominent political figures

opposed to the continued Syrian presence in Lebanon and to have been the main

victims of attacks causing a state of terror.95 Moreover, it claims that the Defence

offers no support for its submission that the connected characteristics of the

targeted victims are too broad. 96

( d) Pattern of the attacks/modus operandi: according to the Prosecution, the

Defence has not demonstrated that it is unable to provide, because of the

situation in Lebanon, in-depth and final submissions on the pattern of the

attacks. 97 The Prosecution emphasises that the preliminary motion challenging

jurisdiction is a purely legal motion that does not involve an assessment of the

evidence. Finally, it highlights the various factual allegations in the indictment

which it considers satisfy this element (such as the use oflinked covert telephone

networks and explosive devices involving motor vehicles in public streets in

Beirut during daylight hours), pointing out that the Defence emphasizes

differences in the particulars but ignores the pattern.98

( e) Perpetrators: the Prosecution argues, along the same line as it does in relation

to the pattern of the attacks element, that the Defence has no right to file further

submissions on this point and that it has not justified the need to obtain expert

advice or conduct investigations in order to make submissions on this element.99

It highlights that the indictment alleges Mr Ayyash's involvement and that of a

second perpetrator, Mr Mustafa Amine Badreddine, in the attacks-just as the

indictment in relation to the Hariri attack did. 100

94 Prosecution response, paras 38-39. 95 Prosecution response, para. 44. 96 Prosecution response, para. 43. 97 Prosecution response, para. 45. 98 Prosecution response, paras 46-4 7. 99 Prosecution response, para. 48. 100 Prosecution response, para. 48.


101 Prosecution response, paras 49-50. 102 Prosecution response, paras 54-59. 103 Prosecution response, para. 54. 104 Prosecution response, para. 60. 105 Prosecution response, para. 61. 106 Prosecution response, para. 62. 107 Prosecution response, para. 64.


64. The ICC's case law on gravity, according to the legal representative, is neither relevant nor a

source of law for the Tribunal. Emphasis when it comes to the gravity requirement should

108 Prosecution response, paras 65-66. 109 Prosecution response, paras 9-10. 110 LRV-Hamade observations, paras 9, 13-14. 111 LRV-Hamade observations, paras 15-19. 112 LRV-Hamade observations, paras 20-23. 113 LRV-Hamade observations, para. 24. 114 LRV-Hamade observations, paras 26-27.


115 LRV-Hamade observations, para. 29. 116 LRV-Hamade observations, paras 28-29. 117 LRV-Hamade observations, para. 30. 118 LRV-Hamade observations, paras 31-34. 119 LRV-El-Murr observations, paras 17-31. 120 LRV-El-Murr observations, paras 24-27. 121 LRV-El-Murr observations, paras 32-54. 122 LRV-El Murr observations, paras 39-43


- r r - - - -- - - ~ .; - - -- - r - - - - -- - - --- - - - ---- - -- -

123 LRV-El-Murr observations, para. 56. 124 LRV-El-Murr observations, paras 58-59, 64. 125 LRV-El-Murr observations, paras 61-66. 126 LRV-El-Murr observations, para. 70. 127 LRV-El-Murr observations, para. 70. 128 LRV-El-Murr observations, paras 76-78. 129 LRV-El-Murr observations, paras 72-74. 130 LRV-El-Murr observations, paras 77-78. 131 LRV-El-Murr observations, paras 78-82. 132 LRV-El-Murr observations, para. 82. 133 LRV-El-Murr observations, paras 90-95.


indictment on the ground that it does not relate to the subject-matter, temporal or territorial

jurisdiction of the Tribunal, including that it does not relate to the Hariri attack or an attack of

134 That is, without hearing the other party. 135 Rule 11 (D) states: "The Prosecutor may appeal the ruling by the Pre-Trial Judge within seven days, in which case the Appeals Chamber may request the Head of Defence Office to nominate independent counsel for appointment as amicus curiae to act in opposition to the Prosecutor's appeal." 136 Rules 68 (J) (ii) and 69. Before confirmation of indictment, a suspect has the same right only if he is to be questioned by the Prosecutor (Rule 65).


Trial Chamber for decision. In other words, the ability to challenge the Pre-Trial Judge's

ruling on jurisdiction is a procedural instrument, not an end in itself, but aimed at undermining

the validity of the indictment and preventing the continuation of the proceedings.

80. Being defined as a challenge, by way of a preliminary motion, it is a free-form remedy. As a

result, the Defence can contest the Pre-Trial Judge's ruling without necessarily lodging an

appeal, that is, without needing to identify the errors committed by a judge on questions of

law invalidating the decision, or errors of fact that have occasioned a miscarriage of justice.


------0---0 ------ ---- -·-------·--· --· --- ----·- ---- --- ----·- - -·-·o- - --·----o -- -· --·---·-·-

determination, the Defence has the right to contest the correctness of his reasoning, in addition

137 Vis attractiva, which, according to Resolution 1757, allows the transfer of jurisdiction from Lebanon to the Tribunal, is based on an assessment of connectedness: there is a main crime, that against Mr Hariri, which exerts vis attractiva on other "satellite" cases. In other words, if the connection assessment is positive, then the jurisdiction over the Hariri attack also attracts jurisdiction on the "satellite" cases, i.e. the connected cases. On vis attractiva, see, inter alia, Italian Supreme Court: I, n. 27254 of 24/06/2010-14/07/2010; II, n. 29110 of 03/05/2019-03/07 /2019; I, n. 16123 of 12/11/2018-12/04/2019; F, n. 36528 of 07 /08/2008-24/09/2008; VI, n. 1131 of 12/12/1996-06/02/1997. 138 Rule 90 (A). 139 See, namely, Appeals Chamber decision on legality. 140 Prosecution response, para. 8.


•• - -- -·- ·--- - -- - -·---- --- - - -· ·---- - -- -·---- • - ·--- ---· ---· ·---·. _1_- - - _1_- - - o- -·------ - -· -·---· - ---·. - -· -·. ·-· ----

in general happen in a relatively short period of time. Moreover, in its decision, the Trial

Chamber is not bound by the Pre-Trial Judge's reasoning or the arguments the Defence puts

forward in its motion. If the Trial Chamber, by rejecting Defence's preliminary motion under

Rules 11 (C) and 90, has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction on the case, the Tribunal's

jurisdiction is settled and the principle of perpetuatio iurisdictionis applies, according to

141 In the Prosecution's view, indeed, the Defence would not be authorized either to rely on the evidentiary material submitted by the Prosecution to the Pre-Trial Judge together with its motion under Rule 11 (A), nor on the disclosed material supporting the indictment.


142 The Appeals Chamber has authoritatively set out the principles applicable to the interpretation of the statutory provisions in its interlocutory decision of 16 February 2011. See: Interlocutory decision of 16 February 2011, paras 13, 17-32. See also STL-17-07 /I/AC/Rl 76bis, F0021, Interlocutory decision on the applicable law: criminal association and review of the indictment, 18 October 2017, paras 15-21; In the case against New TV S.A.L. Karma Mohamed Tahsin Al Khayat, STL-14-05/PT/AP/AR126.l, F0012, Decision on interlocutory appeal concerning personal jurisdiction in contempt proceedings, 2 October 2014, paras 26-30. 143 Interlocutory decision of 16 February 2011, para. 27. 144 In any event, this principle has to be balanced against the need to check that the words are consistent with the overall text and adhering to what the Statute's framers intended. See Interlocutory decision of 16 February 2011, para. 19.


145 Defence preliminary motion, para. 21 (b). 146 Interlocutory decision of 16 February 2011, para. 14. 147 Interlocutory decision of 16 February 2011, paras 20, 27-28. 148 Defence preliminary motion, paras 19, 33-35. 149 Interlocutory decision of 16 February 2011, para. 20. 150 Interlocutory decision of 16 February 2011, paras 21, 135. 151 See, for example, Fourth report of the International Independent Investigation Commission established pursuant to Security Council resolutions 1595 (2005), 1636 (2005) and 1644 (2005), paras 54, 73, 75, 78, 86; Fifth report of the International Independent Investigation Commission established pursuant to Security Council resolutions 1595 (2005), 1636 (2005) and 1644 (2005), para. 67; Sixth report of the International Independent Investigation Commission established pursuant to Security Council resolutions 1595 (2005), 1636 (2005) and 1644 (2005), paras 12, 64-71.


95. In the Trial Chamber's view, the temporal requirement envisaged in Article 1 of the Statute

(the attacks must have occurred in Lebanon between 1 October 2004 and 12 December 2005)

could also prove useful for connectedness, considering that pre-programmed cnmes,

152 Defence preliminary motion, paras 31, 50-51. 153 Interlocutory decision of 16 February 2011, para. 32.


---·---- --- -- ·--- -------- ---·- -- ---------··- ------···--· --- -----··-·----- ----· -------·--- L---·-- ··--··_J -----_t-· -----

ont ete commises par differentes personnes, meme en differents temps et en divers lieux, mais par suite d'un concert forme a l'avance entre elles." Article 133 of the Lebanese Code of Criminal Procedure: "The following are considered connected offences:( ... ) (b) Offences committed by a number of persons at different times and in different places by common accord". Article 12 (ii) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: "Proceedings are connected if: (ii) One person is indicted for a plurality of crimes committed with one single action or omission, or with more actions or omissions that are part of the same criminal plan". See also Article 81, section II Italian Criminal Code and the relevant domestic case law: Italian Court of Cassation, Chamber 1, n. 4122 del 13/10/1993-24/11/1993 (abstract: "11 medesimo disegno criminoso che deve caratterizzare i reati ai sensi dell'art. 81, secondo comma, cod. pen, consiste in un'iniziale programmazione e deliberazione, anche se generica, di una serie di reati per realizzare un preciso ed unico scopo di fondo; la continuazione e costituita dal rapporto dei reati che si compiono con l'originario unico piano criminoso di cui, anche se non specificamente previsti fin dall'inizio, devono costituire svolgimento in vista del conseguimento dello scopo perseguito").


r-\._ll_lJ\..tal JUUl:;lll\..tlH h _l)ala. ~~' \~Ullllalj, 1 IU,)f:.(.,,LUUI v. LJIUJUllUt, 11-77-Jv-1, JUUl:;111\..tllL, J_ ..J\..t_lJL\..tlllU\..t1 ~VV'"'t, _lJala.

262 (same); Prosecutor v. Simic, Tadic and Zaric, IT-95-9-T, Judgment, 17 October 2003, para. 158 (similar). The Krnojelac Appeals Chamber stated that the Appeals Chamber in Tadic has declared that "the actus reus of this mode of participation in one of the crimes provided for in the Statute is common to each of the three categories of cases set out above and comprises the following three elements: (i) A plurality of persons. They need not be organised in a military, political or administrative structure, as is demonstrated clearly by the Essen Lynching and the Kurt Goebell cases. (ii) The existence of a common plan, design or purpose which amounts to or involves the commission of a crime provided for in the Statute. There is no necessity for this plan, design or purpose to have been previously arranged or formulated. The common plan or purpose may materialise extemporaneously and be inferred from the fact that a plurality of persons acts in unison to put into effect a joint criminal enterprise. (iii) Participation of the accused in the common design involving the perpetration of one of the crimes provided for in the Statute. This participation need not involve commission of a specific crime under one of those provisions (murder, extermination, torture, rape, etc.), but may take the form of assistance in, or contribution to, the execution of the common plan or purpose.": Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, T-97-25-A, Judgement, 17 September 2003, para. 31. See also Tadic Appeal Judgment, para. 227 (same three elements).


other similar attacks" was bound to create a perception of selective justice. 159 More

importantly, when discussing the subject-matter of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the Secretary-

General repeatedly referred to "a pattern" and "a series" of terrorist attacks that seemed to

156 Resolution 1686, S/RES/1686 (2006); Resolution 1748, S/RES/1748 (2007); S/RES/1757 (2007); Resolution 1852, S/RES/1852 (2008). 157 Third report of the International Independent Investigation Commission established pursuant to Security Council resolutions 1595 (2005), 1636 (2005) and 1644 (2005), paras 55-69. 158 Secretary-General's report of 15 November 2006, paras 11-14. 159 Secretary-General's report of 15 November 2006, para. 12 (c).


105. By accepting this premise, it follows that the crucial element of connectedness is the

existence of a similar purpose behind the three attacks and the Hariri attack. This criterion of

connectedness is, moreover, implied in the principles of criminal justice discussed above.

160 Secretary-General's report of 15 November 2006, paras 23-24. 161 Secretary-General's report of 15 November 2006, para. 24.


110. The indictment pleads numerous facts alleging to demonstrate a pattern connecting each

of the three attacks to the Hariri attack. Each of the attacks pleaded in the indictment: (i)

involved the use of linked covert telephone networks for surveillance and communication by

those involved in preparing and executing the attacks; (ii) was carried out by means of

162 See connected case indictment, paras 4, 15-16, 31-32, 50-51; and Hariri attack indictment, paras 6-7.


as well as "other similar attacks" in order to avoid the perception of selective justice.

163 See connected case indictment, paras 8-14, 18-29, 28, 30, 34-48, 47, 49, 55-65, 64 and Hariri attack indictment, paras 4, 14-16, 18-19, 21-22, 24-26, 30, 32-36, 38-42. 164 Defence preliminary motion, para. 8. 165 "Similar" is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: "Having a significant or notable resemblance or likeness, in appearance, form, character, quantity, etc., to something stated or implied (though generally without being identical); of a like nature or kind. Of two or more persons or things: resembling or like one another." In contrast, "identity" is defined as: "The quality or condition of being the same in substance, composition, nature, properties, or in particular qualities under consideration; absolute or essential sameness; oneness." (Online Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, June 2020).


-·-o-·------·- ·· -·-- --o-·--·- ·- ·--- ---·--_1_---·-··---- -·---· -·J_-_1_-----··---- -- ·--- ·----- --------·- ---··-·-- -·---·

gravity".

166 Defence preliminary motion, paras 162-165. 167 Defence preliminary motion, para. 164. 168 Pre-Trial Judge's connected case decision, paras 78, 83, 136-137. 169 Connected case indictment, paras 4, 18, 34, 53, 68, 72. 170 Prosecution response, para. 64; see connected case indictment, paras 67-68, 71-7 6 and Hariri attack indictment, paras 53-62; Judgment, para 6904.


120. The Defence contends that the Prosecution did not provide prima facie evidence of a

specific common or shared purpose between the Hariri attack and the three attacks, nor

171 See, for instance, connected case indictment, paras 2, 4, 6-7, 18-25, 34-44, 53-61 and Hariri attack indictment, paras 2 (a), 3 (a), 15 (d), 18-22, 24, 26, 30, 32-39, 48, 50. 172 See connected case indictment, paras 4, 15-16, 31-32, 50-51 and Hariri attack indictment, paras 6-7; see also Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., STL-11-01/T/TC, Corrected version of the Prosecution final trial brief, filed 16 July 2018, 27 July 2018, para. 24. 173 Connected case indictment, paras 4, 6, 15-16, 18, 25-32, 34, 44-51, 53, 61-65, 67-76.


1.C."t. 1111;; 1 lldl \._,,ll(:llllUCl llll;;ll;;lUlC vUllMUCl:S llldl llll;;ll;; l:S JH lfflU JU

STL-11-01 case, entitles it to postpone or divide the proceedings on jurisdiction into temporal

or material segments.

177 Prosecutor v. Ayyash, STL-18-10/PT/PTJ, F0102, Public redacted version of Prosecution response to Defence "Request for an extension of time to respond to two Prosecution filings" dated 25 February 2020, 28 February 2020, para. 3.



20200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_0120200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_0220200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_0320200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_0420200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_0520200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_0620200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_0720200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_0820200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_0920200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_1020200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_1120200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_1220200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_1320200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_1420200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_1520200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_1620200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_1720200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_1820200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_1920200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_2020200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_2120200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_2220200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_2320200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_2420200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_2520200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_2620200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_2720200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_2820200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_2920200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_3020200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_3120200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_3220200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_3320200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_3420200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_3520200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_3620200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_3720200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_3820200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_3920200910_F0203_PUBLIC_TCII_Dec_Def_Prelim_Challenge_Jurisdic_Filed_EN_LW_Page_40

prosecutor v. ayyash, june 2020, 30 july 2020 (lrv-hamade … · 2020. 9. 10. · 1 prosecutor...

Documents