A tribunal’s legal tender

Justice should carry no price tag, but anyone who has received an invoice from their lawyer knows that justice is not cheap. In early March the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) came into effect, pursuant to the request of the Lebanese government and United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions 1644 and 1757. On the surface, the explosion that ripped through the heart of Beirut on February 14, 2005, may not seem worthy of a tribunal with an “international character” or the invocation of chapter seven of the UN charter. Indeed, such events are not uncommon around the Middle East and they have become almost synonymous with the regional political scene. Yet it was this event the lead to the death of the Western backed, two-time Lebanese Prime Minister and business mogul Rafiq Hariri.

The politics of paying

The tribunal is the legal successor to the United Nations International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIC). As with almost any international mechanism seeking justice, the commission and the STL have been the subject of a great deal controversy. Allegations of politicization of the investigation and subsequent tribunal abound.

“There are always claims around every tribunal that there is some politicization because you only have to have the USA put money in and you will find that straight away people will say that there is politicization,” says Robin Vincent, registrar of the STL, in effect the chief administrative officer for the tribunal.

The total cost of the STL is still unknown because the first three years have been budgeted, but there is no set timeline for the completion of the tribunal. The principle reason for the open-ended nature of the STL is attributed to a clause in the mandate of the tribunal that can extend the court’s jurisdiction to “other attacks that occurred in Lebanon between October 1, 2004, and December 12, 2005, which are connected in accordance with the principles of criminal justice and are of a nature and gravity similar to the attack of February 14, 2005.” If that comes to pass, the current budget for the STL may also be extended.

“If anything should happen during the year in terms of activities being advanced, I have to respond,” says Vincent. “I am in a position where I can go back to the committee [the organ in charge of administrative decisions at the STL] and ask them to amend or revise the budget to provide me with more funds than those that actually exist.”

The funding for the STL is provided by voluntary donations from UN member states. The Government of Lebanon (GoL), currently led by the “pro-Western” Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, is obliged to pay 49 percent of the total budget allocated to the tribunal, a compulsion they have been keen to meet. The budget for the first year of the tribunal was initially set at approximately $35 million, to which the GoL made a down payment of 49 percent.

In November of 2008, the management committee raised the 2009 budget to where it stands today at $51.4 million, for which the GoL has already paid its share. The total amount of money received thus far towards the first year comes to around $62.6 million.

“We do have money over and above the budget of the first year,” says Vincent. If, however, the makeup of the Lebanese government changes as a result of the June elections and the country’s leadership becomes less willing to support the tribunal for political reasons, there is always the nuclear option. “If during the lifetime of the tribunal the funding situation becomes difficult then [the UN Secretary General] reserves the right to revert to the UNSC,” asserts Vincent.

The expenses of the first year will cover the logistical elements necessary for the initiation of proceedings, as well as the other activities of the tribunal. “The prosecutor [Daniel Bellemare] has made it very clear that he would see 2009 as still being a year where predominately there would be ongoing investigations,” says Vincent.

Today, there is still a small team in Beirut that is currently liquidating its operations, which are not funded by the STL but by the UN itself. Although the list of contributors ranges from Austria to Uruguay, the latter contributing a symbolic $1,500, perhaps the most notable facet of the list is that the countries that have contributed to the STL all come from the same political angle, thus prompting further accusations of politicization. The principal contributors to date are the United States ($14 million), Kuwait ($5 million), France ($4.5 million) and a collection of other “regional states,” who have chosen to “exercise their right to remain anonymous,” according to Vincent.

Prepping for trial

As of late March, the premises where the proceedings will be held are still under construction and are not expected to be ready until late 2009. Furthermore, the STL is still in the process of preparing the facilities to handle the logistics of holding the accused, housing the organs of the court and preparing the building on the outskirts of The Hague for a total cost of $8.8 million. As for year two of the STL and beyond, many of the existing donors have already been asked to commit money.

“Of course we have gone back […] to all the existing donors asking them if they could make a pledge for year two particularly and year three if they could do,” notes Vincent. “The difficulty is that, for most member states, their fiscal arrangements don’t always allow them to commit money, especially when there may be an election in the next year or when there is a financial crisis,” says Vincent. But there are those who look set to be in it for the long haul. “Hillary Clinton came out about a month ago and pledged $6 million on behalf of the US for year two. We don’t think that will be all, but its an indication from the US that they are committed.”

The commitment that will have to be solidified in the coming year is expected to go up even after the construction and logistical phases have been completed.

“I was asked to forecast figures for the second and third years and the figures that I came up with were $65 million for each of the next two years,” says Vincent. “We can see that is significant and around a 25 percent rise in our costs… is attributed to a predicted change in the prosecutor’s activities, moving from investigation to trial and there would be an emphasis on trial teams, which isn’t there at the moment.”

Currently the STL seems in a good financial position and liquid enough to fulfill its tasks. Moreover, it seems to have learned from the shortcomings of previous tribunals by shooting high in order to avoid future financial problems. Where the money comes from — and the politics of the matter — will undoubtedly be the subject of much discussion in the years to come. What is important, however, is that the STL retain its objectivity, regardless of what criticisms are leveled. That will be a difficult task to fulfill. But in the end, as Vincent affirms, “the tribunal can only be judged by its acts and not [its] words.”

Special Tribunal for Lebanon

Status of pledges/contributions (in $)