Detlev Mehlis

Nearly 10 years ago, on June 16, 2005, the United Nations International Independent Investigation Commission, which was established to investigate the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, began its operational work in Beirut.

UNIIIC laid the groundwork for the trial and investigation being conducted today by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. I was UNIIIC’s first commissioner and this anniversary, which coincides with my retirement as a prosecutor in Germany, may be a good time to reflect not only on the Hariri investigation, but also on the usefulness or uselessness of international justice and the ways it is or can be delivered.

It is fair to say that international justice cannot be a cure for all evil in the world. Until today, not a single international investigation and ensuing trial has met its original expectations. Even the role model of international justice, the Nuremberg tribunal, which in 1946 sentenced Nazi leaders from my own country, had its flaws: The top defendant, Hermann Goering, committed suicide during the trial; other defendants could not be arrested and were sentenced in absentia; defense lawyers were barred from presenting their clients in court, and so on.

Out of necessity, international investigations and trials are selective. For good reason people ask why the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, the ongoing crimes by the Syrian regime against its own citizens, by ISIS in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere and the political assassinations, kidnappings and enforced disappearances during the Civil War in Lebanon were or are not investigated and judged by international panels.

The biggest disadvantage of recent international trials is that they last too long. “Justice delayed is justice denied,” as British Prime Minister Lord Gladstone once said, and “it is injustice,” as U.S. President Thomas Jefferson similarly stated, were always my favorite quotes. Like the Nuremberg tribunal, international tribunals, including the STL, have seen their defendants and judges die during the process. Investigations take too much time, as well. While the investigation of specific events is required to cast light on the environment leading to crimes, which more than once, as in the Hariri case, uncovers the motives of the crime, in the end any investigation must focus on the individual perpetrator or perpetrators.

The victims of a crime and their dependents, together with the public, have the right to a complete, impartial, yet swift investigation and trial. This coincides with the rights of the defendants, once they are identified and arrested, to be accused and judged without delay. One mustn’t forget that with time, witnesses tend to become frustrated, are intimidated or worse (as seen with the STL), or simply forget the details of what they had previously seen, heard, or said.

International justice does not provide long-term sustainability in the concerned countries and regions. Such justice is provided by an external authority, therefore it is an exception to the rule that national systems have the authority and responsibility to investigate and judge crimes committed by their citizens or committed within their area of responsibility, or both.

Therefore international tribunals should be courts of last resort. Only when everything fails, when no (functioning) state and justice system exist, or are disinclined to exercise their functions, should an international justice system be established.

As a longtime prosecutor working on terrorism-related cases in Berlin, I more than appreciate the German criminal law system and its courts. Over the years, it allowed me to charge and sentence, among others, East German and Syrian officials who cooperated with the then-world-famous terrorist “Carlos the Jackal” in the bombing of the French Consulate in Berlin, Libyan Embassy staff who had orchestrated the bombing of a discotheque visited by U.S. soldiers, Jordanian citizens, who, with the support of Syrian Air Force intelligence, attacked a German-Arab cultural center, as well as other cases.

While efficient international judicial cooperation was essential to solving these cases, international justice was not required in any of them. Why? Because a criminal justice system was in place and worked. Therefore, and wherever possible, existing national justice systems should be brought into a position where they can take things into their own hands.

During my eight months in Beirut I realized that the Lebanese criminal justice system was in fact a “sleeping beauty,” and only needed to be awakened. The laws and judicial framework were there and determined prosecutors, experienced lawyers and good judges were available and eager. What they needed, after years of Syrian oppression, was United Nations cover to renew their self-confidence, reinforce their will to decide in an unbiased and independent way, and apply existing laws.

A perfect example was UNIIIC’s close cooperation with the Lebanese General Prosecutor’s Office and the Internal Security Forces, including Wissam Eid’s men. While they were at first reluctant to accept our advice and recommendations, the Lebanese authorities showed huge progress during my term.

Years later, in 2010 and 2011, I was tasked with heading the European Union’s EPJUST program in the Philippines. For years the country – like Lebanon – had faced a string of politically motivated assassinations, which had neither been investigated properly nor resulted in accusations, trials and convictions. The murders targeted politicians, journalists, environmental activists, trade union representatives, but also judges and prosecutors.

As in Lebanon, the Philippines had most of the laws it needed. It had good police officers and well-trained prosecutors and judges. What it did not have though, was cooperation among police and judicial bodies and the political will to end impunity. To change things, the EU sent to the Philippines, for free, police and judicial experts from several countries. They assisted, trained, motivated, organized and informed investigators and justice officials alike. Close-protection specialists from Germany were brought in to deliver security advice to prosecutors, judges, journalists and human rights activists. British police officers worked with Filipino authorities to improve their weak witness-protection system. This did not lead to a perfect world, but it did help sharply reduce the number of political murders.

Therefore, international justice can be helpful when everything else fails and there is no justice in place. In all other scenarios, national authorities, while they may count on international assistance, should assume their responsibilities.