SPECIAL TRIBUNAL

FOR LEBANON

EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT

(2016-2017)
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL FOR LEBANON

EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT (2016-2017)

Dear Prime Minister,

Dear Secretary-General,

It is my privilege to submit to you the Special Tribunal for Lebanons Eighth Annual Report, in accordance
with Article 10 (2) of the Tribunals Statute. This reportthe second during my tenure as President
addresses the Tribunals activities in the period between 1 March 2016 and 28 February 2017.

At the outset, on behalf of the Tribunal, I wish to express my sincere gratitude for the enduring support
both financial and nonfinancialof Lebanon and the international community, without which our work
would not be possible. The Tribunal is committed to carrying out its functions as efficiently as possible and
minimizing costs in the process.

The achievements and progress documented in this report are a credit to the Tribunals dedicated
personnel in Beirut and Leidschendam, who come from all parts of the world and share a commitment to
the successful completion of the Tribunals mandate. These individuals are our greatest asset.

All of us working at the Tribunal are cognizant of the people for whom this institution carries out its
mission. As the Tribunals principal mandate is to try those allegedly responsible for the crimes over which
it exercises jurisdiction, the rights of the accused and victims also remain at the forefront of its work. The
Tribunal is mindful of the interests of stakeholders in Lebanon and the wider international community as, in
effect, the reach of its work is broader than its judicial functions. The Tribunal contributes to an institutional
legacy in Lebanonpredominantly through its legal decisions, but also through outreach with lawyers,
academics, educational institutions, and the wider communityand forms part of the global initiative for
justice and accountability.

Last years annual report concluded by observing that the Tribunal must be accountable to the Lebanese
public as well as the broader international community. Continuing endeavours to achieve this goal require
the expeditious and just conduct of the Tribunals proceedings and demand the efficient use of the
Tribunals resources. Efforts in this respect during the reporting period bore concrete results, seeing a
reduction of the Tribunals budget and its continued effective functioning. In pursuit of these objectives, I
have also confirmed my ongoing commitment to promoting the transparency, efficiency and accountability
of the Tribunals operations. This report is intended to offer a transparent account of the Tribunals
progress during the reporting period.

Ivana Hrdlikov
President

3|Page
4|Page
Table of Contents

PART I INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................7
PART II MAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE TRIBUNAL .............................................................................................8
A. Chambers ........................................................................................................................................8
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................8
2. Judicial activities .........................................................................................................................8
3. Staff appeals .............................................................................................................................13
4. Regulatory activities .................................................................................................................14
5. External relations ......................................................................................................................15
6. Management of resources .......................................................................................................15
7. The Way Forward .....................................................................................................................16
B. Office of the Prosecutor ...............................................................................................................17
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................17
2. The trial of Ayyash et al. presentation of the Prosecution evidence-in-chief .......................18
3. The trial preparation and activities in support of the presentation of the case ...................22
4. Ongoing investigations within the jurisdiction of the OTP .......................................................23
5. Assessment of potentially related cases ..................................................................................24
6. Other ongoing work of the OTP................................................................................................24
7. The Way Forward .....................................................................................................................25
C. The Defence Office .......................................................................................................................27
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................27
2. Defence Office involvement in judicial activities .....................................................................27
3. Regulatory activities undertaken by the Defence Office..........................................................31
4. List and training of Defence Counsel ........................................................................................32
5. Institutional activities of the Defence Office ............................................................................32
6. Measures implemented in 2016...............................................................................................34
7. The Way Forward .....................................................................................................................35
D. Registry .........................................................................................................................................36
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................36
2. Effective judicial support ..........................................................................................................36
3. Efficient administration ............................................................................................................39
4. Engaging the public ..................................................................................................................40
5. Security and Safety ...................................................................................................................41
6. Securing support.......................................................................................................................41
7. Tribunal premises outside the Netherlands .............................................................................42
8. The Way Forward .....................................................................................................................43
PART III CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................44
5|Page
6|Page
PART I INTRODUCTION

During the reporting period, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was dedicated to the realization of its
principal mandateconducting the trials of those accused of the crimes over which the Tribunal
has jurisdiction.

In carrying out this work, the Tribunal continued to break new ground, owing to its unique place in
the wider international criminal justice system. The distinctive features of the Tribunals experience
stem from the fact that it is an international criminal tribunal applying a hybrid of domestic
(Lebanese) criminal law in combination with procedural and evidentiary rules reflecting
international standards. Moreover, the Tribunal continues to conduct proceedings in its main case
in absentia, as authorized by its Statute.

As in previous reporting periods, the Tribunals work has centred around the case of Prosecutor
v. Ayyash, Merhi, Oneissi and Sabra, which concerns the 14 February 2005 attack in Beirut that
killed former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, and 21 other persons, and injured 226 others.

In May 2016, reports of the death of one of the Accused, Mr Mustafa Amine Badreddine, resulted
in a temporary stay of proceedings pending the Appeals Chambers 11 July 2016 decision on the
matter. That decision, terminating proceedings against Mr Badreddine without prejudice,
contributed to the establishment of new legal precedents related to the standard of proof.

In addition to the main case, two ancillary contempt proceedings led to the issuance of final
judgments from the Contempt Judge and an Appeals Panel.

The Office of the Prosecutor continued to present evidence-in-chief in the Ayyash et al. case, and
has now entered the final phase of its case-in-chief. The Prosecutor simultaneously investigated
other attacks within the Tribunals jurisdiction and assessed incidents potentially connected to the
14 February 2005 attack, pursuant to Article 1 of the Statute.

Throughout the reporting period, the Defence Office provided operational and administrative
support to Defence Counsel and their teams, in the Ayyash et al. case and in contempt proceedings.
This included overseeing the provision of legal aid, submitting written observations in accordance
with Rule 57 (F) of the Tribunals Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and representing the interests
of the Defence in relations with internal and external stakeholders.

The Tribunals daily functioning was made possible over the past year thanks to the vital support
provided by the Registry. Through the Tribunals offices in Beirut and Leidschendam, the Registry
has effectively supported all aspects of judicial proceedings, including court management,
translation and support to victims and witnesses; overseen the administration of human and
financial resources, budget and procurement; maintained the safety and security of the Tribunals
premises; and engaged with members of the public, legal and diplomatic communities, in Lebanon,
the Netherlands and beyond.

The developments during the reporting period are addressed in further detail in the sections that
follow.

7|Page
PART II MAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE TRIBUNAL

A. Chambers

1. Introduction

In the past twelve months, the Pre-Trial Judge, the Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber, as well
as the Contempt Judge, an Appeals Panel and a Panel convened under Rule 25 (B) of the Tribunals
Rules of Procedure and Evidence (Rules), have been engaged in judicial activities.

These judicial activities have predominantly focused on ongoing trial proceedings in the Ayyash et
al. case, concerning the 14 February 2005 attack against former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik
Hariri. The reporting period also marked the conclusion of the trial and appellate stages of two
ancillary contempt proceedings.

2. Judicial activities

Prosecutor v. Ayyash, Merhi, Oneissi and Sabra

The trial of Messrs Salim Jamil Ayyash, Hassan Habib Merhi, Hussein Hassan Oneissi and Assad
Hassan Sabra continued throughout the reporting periodand against Mr Mustafa Amine
Badreddine until 11 July 2016. The Trial Chamber sat, save for scheduled recesses and for several
periods of non-sitting resulting from scheduling issues beyond the Trial Chambers control, for
85 hearing days. Between the Prosecutions opening of the trial on 16 January 2014 and the end of
2016, the Trial Chamber sat for 289 days, producing 58,154 pages of transcripts in the Tribunals
three official languages.

Between 1 January and 31 December 2016, the Trial Chamber received evidence from 58 witnesses,
heard live testimony from 18 witnessessix of whom testified from the Tribunals Beirut Office
through live video-conference linkand admitted into evidence written statements from 40 other
witnesses. 1 Between the commencement of the trial in 2014 and the end of 2016, the Trial
Chamber had received the evidence of 236 witnesses, including the live testimony of 113 witnesses
and the statements of another 133. 2

The evidence received during the reporting period concerned key areas of the Prosecution case,
including Lebanese telecommunications networks Alfa, MTC Touch and OGERO, and their
record-keeping practices; cell site analysis of mobile telephone use; an alleged false claim of
responsibility for the attack of 14 February 2005; interconnected mobile networks allegedly used to
carry out the attack; Mr Hariris convoy and schedule; and the identity and activities of a Mr Sami
Issa, an alleged alias for Mr Badreddine.

1
In January and February 2017, the Trial Chamber received the oral or written evidence of 18 witnesses, one
of whom had testified before.
2
Ten witnesses gave evidence in both oral and written form.

8|Page
 Extensive call data records (CDR) and cell site evidence were received from two Lebanese
communications service providers, MTC Touch and Alfa. The Trial Chamber received the evidence
of representatives from the service providers under Rules 154, 155 and 156 of the Rules through a
mixture of witness statements, company records and documents produced for the Office of the
Prosecutor (OTP), and heard 26 days of oral testimony between January and July 2016.

The Trial Chamber heard testimony from eight OTP analysts or investigators on various topics.
These included: the activity of four telephone networks and one telephone group; the investigation
of the false claim of responsibility; the disappearance of Mr Ahmed Abu Adass, as pleaded in the
amended consolidated indictment; interviews conducted during the investigation; call sequence
tables; and the electronic presentation of evidence (EPE) software.

In 2016, the Trial Chamber issued 224 decisions and orders, including 167 written decisions totalling
1,262 pages and 57 decisions and orders delivered orally in court. Two dissenting opinions were
also issued. These decisions and orders concerned issues such as the admission and disclosure of
evidence; the use of thematic summaries of evidence; the termination of proceedings against
Mr Badreddine; amending the consolidated indictment; requests for certification to appeal the Trial
Chambers decisions; protective measures for victims and witnesses; and requests for authorization
of testimony by video-conference link. Some of the more significant decisions are described in more
detail below.

In the previous reporting period, the Defence for Badreddine, Merhi and Oneissi appealed against
the Trial Chambers decision of 23 October 2015 refusing a request to modify the conditions
imposed by the President on the service of a Lebanese journalist as an expert consultant for the
Defence. On 19 February 2016, the Trial Chamber, by majority with Judge Re dissenting, certified
the issue for interlocutory appeal. On 7 March 2016, Judge Baragwanath submitted a request to the
President to be excused from sitting on the appeal against the decision, on the basis of an
association he had which he considered might appear to affect his impartiality. On 8 March 2016,
the President designated a panel of three Judges to decide on Judge Baragwanaths request,
pursuant to Rule 25 (B) of the Rules. On 11 March 2016, the Panel granted the request and, on
3 May 2016, the Appeals Chamber issued a decision dismissing the Defence appeal, finding that the
Defence had failed to demonstrate that the Trial Chamber erred in its assessment of the original
request.

On 6 April 2016, following a voir dire hearing on expert hearings and expertise, the Trial Chamber
decided that Mr Gary Platt, an OTP investigator, was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence
on the surveillance of criminal networks and the identification and organisation of covert
communication networks. Further to the Trial Chambers decision, Mr Platt commenced presenting
analysis of the activity of the different telephone networks allegedly implicated in the
14 February 2005 attack and then re-appeared for cross-examination by Defence Counsel in July
2016. In January 2017, the Trial Chamber clarified its earlier decision in relation to Mr Platts
qualifications to provide expert evidence, explicitly stating that Mr Platt may provide such evidence
within the defined area of his expertise as relevant in relation to the group of purple phones
allegedly implicated in the 14 February 2005 attack and the false claim of responsibility. Mr Platt
returned in January and February 2017 to complete the third part of his testimonyconcerning the
chronology of events leading to the attack.

In mid-May and early June 2016, the Trial Chamber received evidence and submissions from the
Parties and the Legal Representatives of Participating Victims relating to reports of the death of the
former Accused, Mr Badreddine. In the absence of an official death certificate, the OTP presented
circumstantial evidence of Mr Badreddines death, including media reports, photographs, video
recordings and stills, and speeches of Lebanese political figures made during Mr Badreddines burial
9|Page
 and commemoration ceremonies. In an oral decision on 1 June 2016, the Trial Chamber,
Judge Braidy dissenting, held that it was not convinced that sufficient evidence had been presented
to prove Mr Badreddines death. In written reasons issued on 7 June 2016, it elaborated that the
standard of proof with respect to the death of an accused is a high standardalthough not as high
as beyond a reasonable doubt. In her dissenting opinion, Judge Braidy agreed as to the high
standard of proof, but found that sufficient evidence had been presented to establish
Mr Badreddines death.

On 9 June 2016, at the request of the Defence for Badreddine, the Trial Chamber certified its
decision for interlocutory appeal. The main issue on appeal concerned the requisite standard of
proof. On 21 June 2016, the Appeals Chamber, by majority, suspended the proceedings before the
Trial Chamber, pending a decision on the merits of the interlocutory appeal. On 11 July 2016, the
Appeals Chamber, by majority, overturned the Trial Chambers decision and directed the Trial
Chamber to terminate the proceedings against Mr Badreddine without prejudice to the possibility
of resuming proceedings should evidence that he is alive be adduced in the future. The majority
determined that the appropriate standard of proof for facts that do not go to the guilt of the
accused is the balance of probabilities, and decided to assess the evidence as to the proof of death
itself rather than remit the matter to the Trial Chamber for a new determination. Consequently, on
11 July 2016, the Trial Chamber ordered the termination, without prejudice, of the proceedings
against Mr Badreddine, and ordered the OTP to file an amended consolidated indictment. The trial
resumed on 13 July 2016.

The Trial Chamber also issued over 20 decisions in July 2016, including decisions admitting civil
records, university student records and financial records relevant to the attribution of telephone
numbers to the Accused. It also took judicial notice of certain facts in United Nations International
Independent Investigation Commission reports and ordered the Parties to attempt to reach further
agreements on uncontested evidence. In addition, the Trial Chamber decided to admit into
evidence a number of witness statements relating to statistical analyses and geographical
coordinates, including the location of Syrian Military Intelligence detachments in Lebanon in 2004
and 2005. The Trial Chamber also found Witness 620 qualified to provide expert opinion evidence
on the analysis of jihadist claims of responsibility for attacks.

In August and September 2016, the Trial Chamber received evidence from Mr John Edward Philips,
a telecommunications and cell site analysis expert, who testified about the operation of covert
mobile telephone networks. Also in this period, Mr Andrew Fahey, an OTP analyst, continued his
testimony about cellular coverage and inputting Alfa and MCT Touch records in three categories
mast locations, cell site azimuths, and best server coverage plotsinto the EPE software. Mr Fahey
returned in October 2016 for further cross-examination concerning the cell site evidence that he
used in the EPE, and its source.

Also in August 2016, Judge Re was re-elected as the Trial Chambers Presiding Judge for a period of
18 months from 10 September 2016.

On 7 September 2016, the Trial Chamber declared operative the amended consolidated indictment
of 12 July 2016which removed Mr Badreddines name as an accused person but pleaded his role
as a co-conspiratorand ordered the OTP to file a summary statement of any evidence it wished to
lead in support of the allegation that the Accused and Mr Badreddine were supporters of
Hezbollah, and ordered the Head of Defence Office to comply with his statutory obligation to
inform the Trial Chamber in writing in advance of any anticipated intervention in the proceedings.
The Trial Chamber also dismissed a Defence request to expunge the court record of evidence
related to Mr Badreddine and to limit the presentation of evidence of his alleged role in the
conspiracy pleaded. The Trial Chamber thereafter annulled the arrest warrants, orders, and
10 | P a g e
 requests for transfer and detention for Mr Badreddine and issued new orders for the remaining
four Accused.

Between September and November 2016, the Trial Chamber issued 17 decisions relating to
telecommunications evidence.

In September 2016, the Trial Chamber delivered three oral decisions followed by written reasons,
and seven written decisions, totalling 274 pages. The Trial Chamber formally admitted into
evidence specified paragraphs and documents in annexes from Witnesses 705s and 707s
statements, explaining that their background and knowledge made the two appropriate corporate
witnesses to present evidence on the reliability of the business practices of Lebanese
telecommunications companies, Alfa and MCT Touch. Their evidence related to the provenance and
authenticity of the CRDs provided to the United Nations International Independent Investigation
Commission and the OTP through responses to requests for assistance sent to the Government of
Lebanon.

In October 2016, the Trial Chamber heard evidence from two former employees of Mr Hariri, who
were part of his convoy. Witness 101, testified about the convoy and Mr Hariris travels and
meetings. Witness 009, gave evidence about calls he made and received while accompanying
Mr Hariri at the end of 2004, trips that Mr Hariri took, and the convoy route on the day of the
attack.

Between 26 October and 1 November 2016, the Trial Chamber issued four decisions admitting
210 call sequence tables into evidence. These related to the Accused and Mr Badreddine; five
colour-coded mobile telephone groups and networks allegedly used in the preparation and
execution of the attack of 14 February 2005 and the alleged false claim of responsibility; the
movements and activities of Mr Hariri; and the purchase of a Mitsubishi Canter van allegedly used
in the attack and the sale of the red network mobile phones. The Trial Chamber held that, when
read in conjunction with cell site evidence, these call sequence tables were probative of the
geographic location and movement of the target mobile telephones.

On 26 October 2016, the Trial Chamber also provided written reasons for its oral decision of
8 September 2016, admitting specified items of the OTPs cell site evidence, obtained from Alfa and
MCT Touch, into evidence.

On 4 November 2016, the Trial Chamber decided to admit into evidence 27 documents containing
telephone subscriber and user details of Lebanese and Syrian landline and mobile telephones, as
relevant to assessing the political context regarding Lebanese and Syrian officials and the four
Accused, and Mr Badreddine, including information on Mr Hariris meetings with Lebanese and
Syrian political figures; interactions between Syrian and Hezbollah officials; contacts between
Messrs Ayyash, Merhi and Badreddine and Syrian and Lebanese officials; Mr Hariris movements
and the sequence of events leading to his assassination.

The Trial Chamber also admitted 101 documents into evidence in November 2016, including
telephone subscriber records from MCT Touch and 60 landline subscriber records from OGERO, a
Lebanese landline telecommunications service provider, all relevant to identifying the registered
subscribers of the telephone numbers which the OTP seeks to attribute to the Accused,
Mr Badreddine, or to third parties.

In October and November 2016, Defence Counsel filed seven requests for certification to appeal six
Trial Chamber decisions relating to the admission of telecommunications evidence. The Trial
Chamber dismissed these applications, in six decisions issued in November and December 2016,
11 | P a g e
 finding that the requests: did not identify an issue; identified issues that did not accurately reflect
the content of the impugned decision; posed issues for certification which were not matters of such
significance that they required immediate appellate resolution; or were unmeritorious.

In December 2016, the Trial Chamber also decided to admit into evidence the consolidated witness
statement of five representatives of relevant departments of OGERO, the main operator of fixed
telecommunications network in Lebanon. The statements covered the OGERO networks
hierarchical architecture; generation, transfer and archiving of landline CDRs; changes to the
network after the Lebanese-Israeli conflict in July 2006; numbering plan; subscriber records; billing;
corporate structure; and information and technology background. The Trial Chamber required that
four of the five witnesses appear for cross-examination.

Following the admission into evidence of five witness statements from the OGERO witnesses, three
appeared for cross-examination by Defence counsel in January 2017. Also in January 2017, the Trial
Chamber received into evidence the statements of a further 14 witnesses relating to the attribution
of telephone numbers to the Accused.

The Trial Chamber also issued various written and oral decisions in January and February 2017. This
included admitting seven sets of documents identifying telephone numbers that the OTP attributes
to one of the Accusedor indicating telephone numbers of third party contacts that assist the
attributionand 36 documents relating to the attribution of telephone numbers to the Accused,
granting protective measures for ten witnesses, allowing video-conference link testimony for three,
and dismissing a Defence motion to apply special measures regarding these witnesses. It also
allowed the OTP to use PowerPoint slides as visual aids and aide memoires to assist the
understanding of Mr Platts expert evidence, and denied the Defence for Merhis subsequent
request for certification for interlocutory appeal against this decision. In February 2017, the Trial
Chamber received into evidence under Rule 155 a further 13 witness statements related to the
activities of Messrs Ayyash and Merhi.

Regular case management meetings, chaired by the Presiding Judge, were held with the Parties,
and attended by the Legal Representative of Victims and representatives of the Defence Office,
throughout the reporting period.

In 2016, the Trial Chamber admitted into evidence or marked for identification a total of
1,232 exhibits, totalling 57,785 pages. This is around half of the 2,364 exhibits admitted or marked
for identification since the beginning of the trial, totalling 112,907 pages of exhibits.

Contempt

Under Rule 60 bis of the Rules, the Tribunal may hold in contempt those who knowingly and wilfully
interfere with its administration of justice.

During the reporting period, contempt proceedings continued in relation to two of three incidents
that had been under investigation by the Amicus Curiae Prosecutor pursuant to Rule 60 bis (E) (ii) of
the Rules.

In the case against Ms Karma Mohamed Tahsin Al Khayat and New TV S.A.L (STL-14-05)

During the previous reporting period, the Contempt Judge issued a Judgment convicting Ms Karma
Mohamed Tahsin Al Khayat, the Deputy Head of News and Political Programs for Al Jadeed, for
knowingly and wilfully interfering with the administration of justice by failing to remove
information on purported confidential witnesses from Al Jadeeds online platforms, in
12 | P a g e
 contravention of a judicial order. The Contempt Judge subsequently sentenced Ms Al Khayat to a
fine of EUR 10,000.

In the same judgment, the Contempt Judge acquitted Ms Al Khayat and New TV, the parent
company of Al Jadeed, of the remaining counts.

Both the Amicus Curiae Prosecutor and Ms Al Khayat appealed the judgment. Defence counsel for
Ms Al Khayat argued that the Contempt Judge erred in convicting Ms Al Khayat. The Amicus Curiae
Prosecutor contended that the Contempt Judge erred in law and fact by acquitting both Ms Al
Khayat and Al Jadeed, and that sentence handed down to Ms Al Khayat was insufficiently severe.

On 8 March 2016, the Appeals Panel delivered its Appeals Judgment. It granted Ms Al Khayats
appeal in part, reversed her conviction for knowingly and wilfully interfering with the
administration of justice and set aside her fine. In addition, the Appeals Panel affirmed the
acquittals of Ms Al Khayat and Al Jadeed.

In the case against Akhbar Beirut S.A.L. and Mr Ibrahim Mohamed Ali Al Amin (STL-14-06)

On 15 July 2016, the Contempt Judge issued a judgment convicting Akhbar Beirut, a legal person,
and Mr Ibrahim Mohamed Ali Al Amin, the director of Akhbar Beirut and its subsidiary newspaper,
of one count each of contempt for their roles in publishing information relating to 32 purported
confidential witnesses in the Ayyash et al. case. The Contempt Judge found that both Accused had
made this confidential information available on Al Akhbars online platforms between January 2013
and February 2016, which had created an objective likelihood that the publics confidence in the
Tribunals ability to protect the confidentiality of information would be undermined.

In a Sentencing Hearing held on 29 August 2016, the Contempt Judge sentenced Akhbar Beirut and
Mr Al Amin to fines of EUR 6,000 and EUR 20,000, respectively. Written reasons for the Sentencing
Judgment were issued on 5 September 2016. Neither Mr Al Amin nor Akbhar Beirut appealed the
Judgment or sentence.

El Sayed

Pursuant to the Pre-Trial Judges decision of 8 October 2012, the Prosecution submitted to the
Pre-Trial Judge, in April and October 2016, updated risk assessments for a number of individuals
whose statements Mr Jamil El Sayed had requested be disclosed.

3. Staff appeals

The Tribunals Judges, as well as external judges designated by the President, adjudicated a number
of staff appeals during the reporting period. These appeals related to certain administrative and
disciplinary decisions of the Registrar. Staff appeal judgments are made available to the Tribunals
staff members (with redactions, as appropriate, to protect the privacy of affected individuals) on
the Tribunals intranet.

13 | P a g e
4. Regulatory activities

The President of the Tribunal is working to guarantee the effective functioning of the Tribunal and
to strengthen the good administration of justice. Regulatory activities conducted within Chambers
and by the Office of the President have focused on three central tenets:

Transparency

The President hosted the Management Committee at the seat of the Tribunal in Leidschendam
between 17 and 18 May 2016. The Management Committee engaged in both formal and informal
discussions with the Tribunals Principals, Judges and personnel, and were privy to presentations
regarding the Tribunals activities.

The President also met with members of the Management Committee on other occasions, in Beirut
and New York, and reported on progress made towards the completion of the Tribunals mandate,
as well as initiatives to address obstacles faced by the Tribunal.

In order to allow all sections of the Tribunal to better analyze the resources and time likely to be
required at the remaining stages of the main case and plan accordingly, a timeline was created for
the Ayyash et al. case, in consultation with the Trial Chamber, the Prosecutor and the Head of the
Defence Office. Since consultations began, all estimates have been accurateand work is
continuing according to the agreed plan.

In anticipation of any future proceedings, the Office of the President began work to assess how
performance indicators can be developed and implemented consistently with the concept of
judicial independence. Consultations were conducted with other international tribunals and
organizations with a view to providing for more nuanced judicial administration in the future.

Efficiency

The President, Vice-President and other Judges have worked on methods to increase the efficiency
and effectiveness of the proceedings. Throughout the reporting period, they have reviewed the
Rules and ancillary legal texts to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of judicial activities.

Accordingly, in March 2016, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules, the plenary of Judges approved
amendments to Rules 133, 140, 167, 177 and 187. The amendments are intended to clarify
elements of the Tribunals procedure, streamline proceedings and strengthen the rights of the
partiesin relation to requests for protective measures for victims and witnesses in particular.

The President also appointed two independent experts in March 2016 to prepare the Tribunal for
the handling of possible future cases. Thirty-six practical and concrete recommendations that
require no amendments to the Tribunals Statute or Rules arose from the experts report. The
recommendations now form a basis of internal discussions regarding the efficient handling of
potential future cases.

Following consultations with the parties to the Ayyash et al. case, Chambers personnel took part in
an intensive short-course in cell site analysis to better equip them to provide assistance to the
Judges of the Tribunal.

The Office of the President worked to draft a series of policies designed to simplify administrative
work associated with the implementation of Judges rights and obligations under their conditions of

14 | P a g e
 service. These policies regulate the maintenance of leave records, working outside of the premises
of the Tribunal, and participation in outside activities and are intended to streamline the
administrative duties of the President, while simultaneously promoting transparent and consistent
practices.

Accountability

In recognition of the direct correlation between the independence of justice and the accountability
of judges, the Judges of the Tribunal have worked to ensure respect for the highest ethical
standards in all aspects of their judicial work.

During a plenary meeting in September 2016, the Judges of the Tribunal discussed and unanimously
adopted a Code of Conduct for Judges drafted by the Office of the President. The Code formally
recognizes the importance of universally accepted standards of conduct relevant to ensuring the
independence, impartiality and integrity of Judges in the exercise of their rights and duties while in
office.

5. External relations

Throughout 2016, the President met regularly with political leaders and members of the diplomatic,
academic and legal communities in Beirut, The Hague and elsewhere.

During official visits to Lebanon conducted in April and November 2016, and January 2017, the
President and Vice-President met with the Lebanese President, Minister of Justice and other
Lebanese government officials. Throughout the reporting period, the President also held meetings
with various ambassadors and diplomats to discuss the activities of the Tribunal.

During 2016, in meetings in New York and Leidschendam, the President briefed members of the
Management Committee on the measures undertaken to enhance transparency, efficiency and
accountability at the Tribunal.

The President, Vice-President and other Judges also engaged with civil society, giving lectures to
students, academics and legal professionals, in The Hague, Beirut and elsewhere, on various
themes relating to the work of the Tribunal such as trials in absentia and international terrorism. To
this end, the Tribunal continued to engage with the Inter-University Programme on International
Criminal Law and Procedure for outstanding Lebanese students, organized by the TMC Asser
Institute in collaboration with 11 Lebanese universities.

Chambers staff prepared the 2015 Casebook, which contains a fully-indexed selection of the most
important decisions rendered during 2015. The 2015 Casebook is available in the three official
languages on the Tribunals website and in print. Casebooks for previous years are also available
online.

6. Management of resources

Chambers effectively managed the workload from the Ayyash et al. case, the two contempt
proceedings and staff appeals with existing staff. In line with the goal of limiting the expenses of
the Tribunal, Chambers has succeeded in reducing its allocated budget for 2017.

15 | P a g e
7. The Way Forward

For the coming period, Chambers and the Office of the President will endeavour to:

(i) make every effort to respect the timeline for the Tribunals main case;
(ii) use resources as efficiently as possible, while conducting judicial and ancillary activities
fairly and expeditiously;
(iii) continue to encourage cooperation between the separate Organs of the Tribunal in
devising and implementing concrete strategies to optimize the Tribunals performance;
(iv) enforce the guiding principles of transparency, efficiency and accountability in order to
promote the good administration of justice and effective functioning of the Tribunal as a
whole, including the fair and impartial conduct of proceedings;
(v) continue outreach and engagement with the Lebanese legal community to enhance
Lebanese participation in international criminal law.

16 | P a g e
B. Office of the Prosecutor 3

1. Introduction

The period from March 2016 to February 2017 has been a busy and productive one for the Office of
the Prosecutor (OTP). The Prosecution presented a large portion of its evidence in the Ayyash et
al. case against the individuals accused of criminal responsibility for the attack against former
Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. It investigated and litigated the death of one of the Accused,
and modified its indictment and case accordingly. The Prosecution has now entered the final phase
of its case-in-chief. Further, the OTP continued its investigations in relation to three other terrorist
attacks, with a view to potential prosecutorial activities.

This report explains the nature and scope of the Prosecution evidence presented during the
reporting period, including the number of witnesses and exhibits.

The Prosecution essentially completed the presentation of the second part of its case, which
concerns the acts undertaken by the Accused and their co-conspirators in 2004 and 2005 to
prepare for and carry out the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister, Mr Hariri. This part
of the case, involving the telecommunications evidence, is technical and complex. As anticipated, it
has been time consuming, not only in its presentation but in the time taken for challenges to
admissibility and the qualifications of expert witnesses, their cross-examination and Judges
questions.

The Prosecution also commenced the presentation of the third and final part of the case,
concerning the identity of the Accused and their respective roles in preparing and perpetrating the
attack and preparing the false claim of responsibility. It is anticipated that the Prosecution case will
be completed by the summer judicial recess of 2017, depending on the Trial Chambers schedule of
court sitting days and the anticipated questioning by the Defence and Judges.

The report also describes the various steps the OTP has taken to present the evidence as effectively
and expeditiously as possible, and highlights some of the considerable amount of work that has
been done, much of it behind the scenes, to enable the Prosecution to present such a complex case
before the Court.

In addition, the report highlights the OTPs work in investigating and presenting evidence in relation
to the reported death of the Accused, Mr Mustafa Amine Badreddine, and the Prosecutions filing
of an amended consolidated indictment to reflect the death and to reclassify Mr Badreddine as a
named co-conspirator.

The report also touches on the ongoing investigations within the jurisdiction of the OTP. During this
period, the OTP continued with its intense and focused investigations into the three other terrorist
attacks that have been found to be connected with the attack against the former Prime Minister
and have been deferred to the Tribunal. Notable progress has been made and a number of further
investigative and analytical lines of inquiry are being pursued. The Prosecution is analyzing the
evidence both on an individual case basis, and overall in relation to the combined evidence related

3
This section has been prepared by the Prosecutor.

17 | P a g e
 to all three cases. Though such investigations are confidential, the report briefly touches on this
aspect of our work, as well as the assessment by the OTP of potentially related cases.

Lastly, the report sets out the anticipated way forward for the coming year, the objectives of the
OTP, and the intention to meet such objectives within the budget in accordance with the
management principles applied in the Office.

2. The trial of Ayyash et al. presentation of the Prosecution evidence-in-chief

This is a particularly complex terrorist case, which is built by thousands of pieces of evidence. Each
piece of evidence needs to be submitted individually, and is put to strict proof, and allowed to be
challenged. As the Prosecution enters the final stages of evidence presentation, it may assist to
place the evidence called during the reporting period within the wider context of the Prosecution
case.

In order to present the evidence in comprehensible segments, the Prosecution identified for the
Court three main categories of evidence to be called at trial:

first, the forensic evidence on the cause of the explosion of 14 February 2005 and evidence
related to the death and injury of the victims of this attack;

second, the evidence of the preparatory acts undertaken by the five Accused and their co-
conspirators in 2004 and 2005 to prepare for and carry out the assassination of Mr Hariri;

third, the evidence concerning the identity of the Accused and their respective roles in the
attack.

The Prosecution has completed the presentation of the first component of its case and has
essentially completed the second component. The third and last component of the Prosecution
case is currently being presented.

During the reporting period, the evidence presentation focused primarily on the preparatory acts
undertaken by the Accused. The Prosecution continued to call evidence relating to the origin,
nature and use of the networks of phones allegedly involved in preparing and carrying out the
assassination of the former Prime Minister. Testimony was presented relating to the use of the
networks of phones in the surveillance of Mr Hariri and those who visited him, and in the
preparations for the assassination, including the abduction of Mr Abu Adass.

This component of the case has involved the presentation of expert evidence on the following
highly technical issues: cell site analysis; computer and information systems; the storage and
security of data, including digital evidence; as well as evidence from the Lebanese communications
service providers. The fundamental challenge by the Defence to the admissibility of telephone data
required a large-scale gathering of evidence from the communications service providers (CSP)
which proved challenging and very time consuming.

In order to expedite proceedings, the Prosecution was able to obtain the agreement of the Trial
Chamber to present relevant evidence in 2015 and 2016 even before the CSP material was brought
before the Court. During the course of the year, the Prosecution successfully sought the admission
of multiple call sequence tables reflecting the call activity of dozens of telephones relevant to the
case against the Accused and their co-conspirators. Extensive evidence from representatives of the

18 | P a g e
 telephone companies was presented. Following legal submissions this was, almost without
exception, entered into evidence.

During the reporting period, the Prosecutor also assessed the implications for the case of the
reported death of the Accused Mr Badreddine following media reports in mid-May 2016. The OTP
immediately took steps to obtain formal notification from the Lebanese State.

In public hearings in May and June, the Prosecution informed the Trial Chamber of developments
and presented evidence and legal submissions relating to the reported death of Mr Badreddine.
This evidence took four main forms: published reports with photographs in the Lebanese and
foreign media of the death of Mr Badreddine; video records of events associated with
Mr Badreddines death and burial; addresses delivered by religious figures, relatives of
Mr Badreddine, and members of Hezbollah; and investigators notes explaining aspects of the
evidence, including the nature of some of the media outlets, the identification of certain persons in
the video-clips and the location of certain events. The Prosecution submitted this evidence to allow
the Trial Chamber to consider whether to make a finding that Mr Badreddine was actually dead.

At the request of the Trial Chamber, the Prosecution also made legal submissions on what it
believed the requisite standard of proof should be for accepting that an accused person was dead
for purposes of discontinuing criminal proceedings against the accused. Following litigation, the
Appeals Chamber ruled on 11 July 2016 that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate the death
of Mr Badreddine and, on the same day, the Trial Chamber terminated the proceedings against
him.

On 12 July 2016, the Prosecution filed an amended consolidated indictment against the four
remaining Accused, removing Mr Badreddines name as an accused person and pleading his role as
a co-conspirator, or accomplice, in the conspiracy alleged against the four Accused.

During the last quarter of 2016, the Prosecution embarked on presenting evidence relating to the
third and last part of its case, concerning the identity of the Accused and their respective roles in
the attack. The Prosecution presented extensive written evidence found admissible by the Trial
Chamber, which is relevant to the attribution of the network phones and personal phones to the
four Accused and to the former Accused, Mr Badreddine.

Much of the remaining evidence is expert technical and analytical testimony. This component of
the case includes expert testimony on phone activity and attribution. This evidence, some of which
has already been presented, involves: a detailed chronology of phone activity by the Accused and
their co-conspirators, and linking it to the known activity and movements of Mr Hariri and other
persons in the case; an analysis of the use of personal phones in conjunction with mission
phones to demonstrate that those personal phones were in the possession of those carrying
mission phones; and an explanation of the attribution process.

Some idea of the scope of the case is revealed in a few numbers:

In 2014, the Prosecution presented 90 witnesses over 64 court sitting days. In 2015, the
Prosecution presented 107 witnesses over the 125 court days scheduled for witness testimony. In
2016, the Prosecution presented the evidence of 44 witnesses over the 81 days scheduled by the
Court to hear evidence; 32 of these were new witnesses, while 12 witnesses had previously
testified, on different topics, in 2015. In 2016, 18 witnesses testified in person before the Court
either in the courtroom at the seat of the Tribunal in Leidschendam and/or via video-link from the
Tribunals Beirut Office.

19 | P a g e
 At the Prosecutions request, the Trial Chamber admitted into evidence the witness statements of
another 26 witnesses, without the witnesses having to attend court to give oral testimony.

With regard to exhibits, in 2014, 432 Prosecution exhibits were admitted into evidence, with an
additional 425 admitted in 2015. A further 68 Prosecution exhibits had been put before the court
and marked for identification at that stage. In 2016, 1,119 Prosecution exhibits were admitted into
evidence, and a further 13 were marked for identification. By the end of the current reporting
period, virtually all the documentary evidence from the Prosecution had been presented to the
Trial Chamber for admission.

The numbers alone, however, do not give the full picture. It is relevant to note the type of
witnesses presented and the nature of their evidence.

For example, in 2016, two representative witnesses of two Lebanese communications service
providers testified for 26 days regarding the generation, storage, and maintenance of business
records of the respective companies; specifically, call data records, cell site-related data, and
subscriber databases. This evidence was completed in January 2017 after three further days of
testimony by five representative witnesses of a third Lebanese communications service provider.

One OTP investigator, found qualifiedafter a two day voir dire hearingas an expert in the
surveillance of criminal networks and covert cellular networks, testified for five days in relation to a
network analysis report. He presented an analysis of the activity of the four telephone networks
implicated in the 14 February 2005 attack and testified in relation to the connectivity amongst the
four networks.

Another expert witness in the area of telecommunications and cell site analysis presented the
second phase of his testimony. Having previously testified in relation to an expert report on cell site
analysis, in 2016 this expert testified for five days in relation to an expert report on common
mission phones.

In addition, as the case proceeded through the second and third evidentiary components, on
occasion individual Defence teams spent considerably more time than the Prosecution questioning
witnesses and used court time to present Defence evidence through the witnesses.

Steps taken to present the evidence in an effective and expeditious way have included:

Streamlining the presentation of the evidence: The Prosecution has continued to make
extensive use of the court rulesderived from the civil law systemto put evidence before
the court in written form. This approach, set out in the Tribunals Rules of Procedure and
Evidence, reduces the court time needed.

The Prosecution has requested the admission of written witness statements to avoid
witnesses attendance in court, and the admission of considerable evidence from the bar
table, without requiring a witness to produce or identify it. The Chamber has been
amenable to this approach, admitting witness testimony and documents in written form,
subject to the presentation of oral summaries in court, and cross-examination of certain
witnesses where requested by Defence Counsel.

The Prosecution has continued to review its witness list, reducing, where possible, the
number of witnesses. For example, as the result of the death of one of the accused, the
Prosecution not only reviewed evidence arising from his death for relevance to the case,
but considered how the case might be streamlined as a result. After identifying significant
20 | P a g e
 evidence concerning the accuseds identity that came to light after his death, as well as
duplication, the Prosecution will be in a position to make a reduction in its case.

Presenting in-court thematic summaries and using visual aids to assist the understanding
of the evidence: The Prosecution has, where appropriate, presented thematic summaries
of the evidence, including so-called roadmaps. The purpose has been to place numerous
pieces of evidence within the wider context of the Prosecutions case, in order to assist the
Trial Chamber, as well as Defence counsel and the participating victims, to better follow
and understand the evidence.

One such thematic summary took the court through the various items of evidence relating
to the nature of the network phones. This approach has been appreciated and encouraged
by the Trial Chamber. Following oral submissions, the Court decided in April 2016 to
formally allow mid-trial summaries of the evidence, which it considered extremely useful
in contextualizing a case as complex and technical as this one.

In addition, the Prosecution has used PowerPoint slides as visual aids to assist in the
understanding of expert reports and testimony, and thereby significantly reduce the time
required to complete experts evidence-in-chief. In a ruling of 12 January 2017, the Trial
Chamber granted the Prosecutions application to use PowerPoint slides to assist the
understanding of the oral evidence of its expert on covert networks in relation to his 458
page report on Communications Evidence concerning the assassination of Rafik Hariri:
Chronology Report, expected to last several weeks. The Court observed that the
Prosecutions intention to use a combination of the electronic presentation of evidence
(EPE) and slides as visual aids to the expert report is more than reasonable; in the Trial
Chambers view it is essential. It makes an efficient use of court time and the Tribunals
resources and simplifies the presentation of very complex facts.

Seeking to narrow the issues in contention: While recognizing that the court proceedings
are adversarial, the OTP has continued to try to find common ground with Defence Counsel
to facilitate the expeditiousness of the proceedings and leave the time-consuming litigation
to the truly contentious matters.

In scheduling witnesses, the Prosecution has sought and considered the Defence estimates
for cross-examination in scheduling a witness. Regular communication takes place between
Prosecution and Defence Counsel concerning the medium and long-term calling of
witnesses. This is inevitable because the Prosecution needs to know whether Defence
Counsel require the attendance of each witness and, if so, how long they will need for
cross-examination.

In several cases, witnesses have been recalled to accommodate Defence requests. On

occasion, lengthy witness testimony has been divided into two or three sections to
separate the different themes in their evidence and clarify matters. This was discussed with
Defence Counsel in round-table meetings to ensure they understood the division, agreed,
and could plan accordingly.

Ensuring the appearance of witnesses: The Prosecution continues to count on the support
of witnesses and victims, many of whom have testified or will be testifying in court. Not
only is their testimony necessary, their participation is at the heart of the proceedings. The
OTP recognizes their courageous efforts in coming forward to testify.

21 | P a g e
 The OTP has contacted witnesses in advance in order to address the need for protective
measures and, if so, taken steps to ensure these are in place.

In 2016, this has included successfully obtaining protective measures from the Court for 24
witnesses who either testified viva voce before the Courtsome with facial and voice
distortionor in writing. This demonstrates the reality of testifying before the Tribunal, but
also that the Prosecution was able to play a role in ensuring that the witnesses would
testify, despite security or other concerns. Further, the Trial Chamber repeatedly granted
Prosecution motions allowing witnesses to testify remotely via video-conference link.

3. The trial preparation and activities in support of the presentation of the case

A considerable amount of other work has been carried out by the OTP, much of it behind the
scenes, to enable the Prosecution to present its case in court.

During the past year, this has included: filing a number of significant trial-related motions;
preparing submissions and filings to the Trial Chamber in relation to the reported death of the
Accused, Mr Badreddine; filing an amended consolidated indictment on 12 July 2016 reflecting the
termination of criminal proceedings against Mr Badreddine, but still naming him as a
co-conspirator; developing and introducing in court several evidence presentation tools to assist
the Court in understanding key components of the telecommunications evidence; conducting
missions and follow up investigations where necessary; seeking and securing cooperation by States;
and preparing and disclosing evidence.

First, in relation to trial-related motions, the Prosecution filed a number of motions seeking
the admission of documentary evidence and witness statements in support of its case. In
2016, the Prosecution filed 32 motions to tender evidence and witness statements without
the need to call witnesses to testify; and two additional motions to tender witness
statements in lieu of examination-in-chief, subject to cross-examination. Some of these
motions were large and complicated, requiring an extensive number of days or weeks to
prepare.

Second, a number of significant evidentiary and legal issues arose at trial in relation to the
reported death of the Accused, Mr Badreddine. These required both in-court submissions
and filings before the Court regarding, notably: the evidence available to allow the Trial
Chamber to consider whether to make a finding that Mr Badreddine was actually dead;
what the requisite standard of proof should be for accepting that an accused person was
dead for purposes of discontinuing criminal proceedings against the accused; whether
there should be a stay of proceedings while the Trial Chamber awaited further evidence
from the Government of Lebanon; and whether the presentation of evidence in the case
could continue, pending the receipt of the further evidence, if Defence Counsel for
Mr Badreddine was not participating effectively in the trial.

Third, on 12 July 2016, the day after the Trial Chamber terminated the proceedings against
Mr Badreddine, the Prosecution submitted its amended consolidated indictment against
the four remaining Accused. The Trial Chamber accepted that the former Accused,
Mr Badreddine, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and that evidence concerning
his role in the crime was to be called by the Prosecution.

22 | P a g e
 Fourth, to assist the Court in understanding the highly technical evidence regarding the
telecommunications and the surveillance, the OTP has developed and introduced a number
of evidence presentation tools. These include: the introduction, in court, of the EPE as a
demonstrative tool through which to organize and visually present extensive amounts of
data related to the telephones allegedly used by the Accused during the preparation and
perpetration of the assassination; PowerPoint slides to serve as a visual aid to assist the
understanding of complex technical expert evidence; and an atlas of relevant cell sectors to
assist the Trial Chamber and the parties to visualize and hence understand this aspect of
the telecommunications evidence. The Trial Chamber has welcomed the assistance of visual
aids to understand the thousands of facts contained in the EPE and the expert reports.

Fifth, in the range of 20 missions have been carried out in relation to trial proceedings and
related investigations. A large number of interviews were conducted by OTP investigators
based in the Beirut Office, resulting in an efficient use of resources in both offices.

Sixth, seeking and securing cooperation by States has beenand remainsan important
aspect of the OTPs work. Much of the OTPs trial work requires State support, for example,
to interview witnesses or obtain forensics or technical expertise. The OTP takes note of the
cooperation provided by Lebanon and the good working relationship with the Lebanese
judicial authorities. Continued support is necessary. With the Prosecution case entering its
final stages, the OTP needs to maintain the levels of support necessary not only to be able
to conduct and complete the trial, but also to continue with related investigative work.

Seventh, the Prosecution continued to meet its ongoing disclosure obligations, including by
providing recently taken witness statements, new exhibits, material received pursuant to
RFA responses and potentially exculpatory material under Rule 113 of the Rules. In
addition, the OTP responded to more than 100 separate written requests from the various
Defence teams for the inspection of evidence within the OTPs possession.

4. Ongoing investigations within the jurisdiction of the OTP

During the reporting period, the OTP continued its investigations necessary to support the
Prosecutions case and to consider any evidence regarding others who may be responsible for the
14 February 2005 attack. The Prosecutor remains open to receive any information that might be
relevant to any investigative matter within the jurisdiction of the OTP, including in relation to
command responsibility.

The OTP also continued with its intense and focused investigations into the three terrorist attacks
that have been found to be connected with the attack against the former Prime Minister and been
deferred to the Tribunal. These are:

the attempted assassination of Mr Marwan Hamade, the former Economy Minister, on

1 October 2004;

the assassination of Mr George Hawi, the former head of the Communist Party, on
21 June 2005; and

the attempted assassination of Mr Elias el-Murr, the outgoing Deputy Prime Minister and
former Defence Minister, on 12 July 2005.

23 | P a g e
 These attacks have some similarities, in that they were directed against political figures and carried
out by using explosive devices either attached to the car of the victim, or placed in a car that
exploded as the victim was passing. But there are also differences which require distinct
investigative strategies, requiring careful and time-consuming investigations.

Notable progress has been made and a number of different investigative and analytical lines of
inquiry are being pursued. The Prosecution is analyzing the evidence both on an individual case
basis, and overall in relation to the combined evidence related to all three cases. This involves
forensic, investigative, analytical and legal work, with a view to potential prosecutorial activities.
There is close cooperation between the dedicated Connected Cases Team and the Trial Team
working on the Ayyash et al. case.

5. Assessment of potentially related cases

A third component of the OTPs work concerns other attacks that occurred in Lebanon which may
potentially fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. As the OTP has no jurisdiction over these
cases, it cannot conduct investigations into them. Unless jurisdiction is sought, these cases remain
for the Lebanese judicial authorities to investigate and prosecute.

The role of the OTP is limited to assessing whether any other attacks occurring in Lebanon within
the relevant timeframe could be connected to the attack against Mr Hariri on 14 February 2005 in
the manner required by Article 1 of the Statute. If such attacks have the requisite connection to the
14 February 2005 attack, the OTP would take the steps necessary to seek jurisdiction over these
cases in accordance with the Statute.

One aspect of cooperation, which should be mentioned in this context, is the preparedness and
ability of the OTP, where appropriate, to provide material to the relevant Lebanese judicial
authorities for their domestic investigations. To the extent possible and appropriate, the OTP is
continuing to provide material generated by the United Nations Independent International
Investigation Commission or the OTP to the Lebanese judicial authorities. The cooperation and
assistance can thus be, in a sense, not only from States to the Tribunal, but also from the OTP to
Lebanon.

6. Other ongoing work of the OTP

During the reporting period, the OTP has also dedicated time and resources to other ongoing work,
including the following:

El Sayed matter: In accordance with the Pre-Trial Judges Order of 8 October 2012, the OTP
submitted in April and October 2016 updated risk assessments for a number of individuals
whose statements Mr Jamil El Sayed had requested be disclosed.

Support to the Lebanese Judicial Authorities: As noted above, the OTP is continuing to
provide support to the Lebanese judicial authorities, where appropriate, which may be of
assistance to them in relation to cases within their jurisdiction.

Contempt cases: In relation to the ongoing contempt proceedings during the reporting
period, the OTP has continued to provide support to the court-appointed Amicus Curiae or
the Defence, if and when requested and where appropriate.

24 | P a g e
 Management, Budget and Staffing: A considerable amount of time and energy is spent by
OTP senior management to maintain, and where possible, increase the level of work within
the Office while retaining staff and reducing the budget. Despite the increase in work, and
the occasional departure of staff, the trial continues as planned, investigations are ongoing
and the extensive behind-the-scenes work needed to support them continues without
disruption.

7. The Way Forward

In the coming year, the OTP will remain focused on its two primary objectives and three ancillary
objectives.

The OTPs first primary objective is to complete the presentation of the final part of the Prosecution
case in the Ayyash et al. trial in an efficient and expeditious manner, and prepare for the next
phases of the trial.

Much of the remaining evidence to be presented is expert technical and analytical testimony. This
component of the case includes expert testimony on phone activity and attribution, and involves
placing numerous pieces of evidence within the wider context of the Prosecutions case. Due to the
volume of the evidence and the complexity of the case, its presentation is expected to be time-
consuming, and Defence cross-examination is anticipated to be lengthy. Some of the experts and
analysts are thus tentatively scheduled for several weeks of testimony. The Prosecution will
continue to use various visual aids in order to assist the Trial Chamberas well as Defence counsel
and the participating victimsto better follow and understand this evidence, and thereby
significantly reduce the time required to complete experts evidence-in-chief.

The Prosecution intends to complete the Prosecution case by the summer judicial recess of 2017,
subject to the Trial Chambers schedule of court sitting days and the anticipated questioning by the
Defence and Judges. This exact timeframe is difficult to predict. The timing is based on the OTPs
assessment of the remaining evidence to be presented. But, the completion of the Prosecution case
is dependentto a certain extenton other factors. It should be noted that some of the time
required, particularly in court, is not within the control of the OTP. The Prosecution will be available
to sit whenever the court schedules a hearing and will adjust to changes in the court schedule to
the best of its ability.

The OTPs second primary objective is to continue its investigations into the three other terrorist
attacks within its jurisdiction. This involves detailed forensic, investigative, analytical, and legal
workon an individual and combined case basiswith a view to potential prosecutorial activities.
It also entails close cooperation between the dedicated Connected Cases Team and the Trial Team
working on the Ayyash et al. case.

Further, the OTP has three other objectives in furtherance of its mandate. It will continue, to the
extent possible, its preliminary assessment of other potentially related terrorist attacks to
determine their connectivity with the 14 February 2005 attack, bearing in mind the jurisdictional
and resource constraints. The OTP will also continue to provide support to the Lebanese judicial
authorities, where appropriate, by providing any artefacts or analysis that may assist with their own
investigation of the cases which remain within their jurisdiction. Finally, the OTP will continue to
provide support, if and when requested and where appropriate, to the court-appointed Amicus
Curiae or the Defence in any contempt proceedings.

25 | P a g e
 The workload of the OTP has continued to increase, as the Prosecution has moved into the heart of
the trial and intensified its investigative efforts. This has been achieved while the OTP has, once
again, effectively reduced its operational budget, as it has in each of the last four years. Effective
change management, resource allocation, and identification of needs, have contributedin
addition to the hard work and extra effort of staff membersto the ability to achieve the increased
level of work due to the trial and investigations underway. The Office has maintained this high level
of work despite the reduction in the budget and the usual turnover of staff associated with ad hoc
institutions.

In the coming year, the OTP will continue to operate on the same management principles and
within the limits of the budget. A work plan has been developed to be able to achieve what needs
to be done over the remaining period of the mandate. In this regard, the Prosecutor has noted that
if further work is taken on by the Office, this may have resource implications. He has stressed,
however, that to the extent possible, the OTP will endeavour to redeploy resources from other
teams within the Office, as the work allows.

26 | P a g e
C. The Defence Office 4

1. Introduction

The year 2016 was mainly given over to the continuation of the trial in the Ayyash et al. case, as the
Prosecution continued with the presentation of its evidence throughout the course of the year. The
year was also marked by the death of one of the Accused, Mr Mustafa Amine Badreddine, and by
the consequences that this had on the proceedings. Two contempt cases were also completed
during this year, with the acquittal on appeal of the Accused in the Al Jadeed case (STL-14-05), and
the conviction of the Accused in the Akhbar Beirut case (STL-14-06).

Over the past year, the Defence Office continued to fulfil its mandate by providing operational and
financial support, as well as legal assistance, to Defence Counsel and members of their teams in the
Ayyash et al. case and in both contempt cases.

Each team was provided with financial and human resources for the entire duration of the
reporting period in compliance with the legal aid budget.

In addition to that assistance to all the Defence teams, the Defence Office continued to carry out its
institutional activities, both within the Tribunal and beyond.

Details of all the Defence Office activities are set out below.

In order to carry out its mandate, the Office comprises a Legal Advisory Section, a Legal Aid Unit
and an Operational Support Unit, with 11 staff members of six different nationalities. All the
activities of those sections are overseen by the Head of Defence Office, assisted by the Deputy.

2. Defence Office involvement in judicial activities

Although the Defence Office is not a party in the trial, it participates in a number of ways in the
judicial activities of the Tribunal. In order to tailor the full range of services it provides to the actual
requirements of the Defence teams and to the current judicial situation of the Tribunal, the
Defence Office, through its Legal Advisory Section, carries out real-time analysis of the proceedings
ongoing before the Tribunal, whether by examining all the motions filed before the Tribunal and
the decisions of the Judges, or by systematically attending the hearings in the various cases.

Composition of the Defence teams

Ayyash et al. case

Replacement of Counsel in two Defence teams

Over the past year, two Counsel representing the rights and interests of the Accused in the Ayyash
et al. case requested the termination of their mandate for personal reasons. Their requests were

4
This chapter was prepared by the Head of Defence Office.

27 | P a g e
 accepted by the Head of Defence Office, after consultation with the Trial Chamber, and they were
replaced by new Defence Counsel.

On 28 January 2016, the Head of Defence Office thus granted the withdrawal request of
Mr Philippe Larochelle, and withdrew his assignment as second Co-Counsel for the Accused, Mr
Oneissi. On the same day, the Head of Defence Office assigned a second Co-Counsel in his place,
Ms Natalie Von Wistinghausen, a lawyer registered with the Berlin Bar in Germany.

On 26 May 2016, the Head of Defence Office accepted the withdrawal of Mr Eugene O'Sullivan
from his post as Lead Counsel for the Defence team for Mr Ayyash and appointed Mr mile Aoun, a
lawyer registered with the Beirut Bar, as Lead Counsel for that Defence team. The same day, the
Head of Defence Office assigned Mr Chad Mair, a lawyer admitted to the Bar of Illinois in the United
States, as second Co-Counsel for the Defence team for Mr Ayyash.

Consequences of the death of Mr Badreddine

Following the announcement of the death of Mr Badreddine in the media on 13 May 2016, the
Defence team representing his rights and interests requested the Trial Chamber to immediately halt
the proceedings against him. After proceedings lasting several weeks, and following the Decision of
the Appeals Chamber on 11 July 2016, the Trial Chamber ruled the same day that the proceedings
against Mr Badreddine should be terminated. On 15 July 2016, noting that Decision, the Head of
Defence Office notified the three Counsel for the Badreddine Defence team of the end of their
mandate and allowed them a period of three months in which to archive all the materials from the
case file.

However, following the Prosecutions decision to retain all the evidence against Mr Badreddine, and
following the Trial Chambers Order of 22 September 2016 considering the possibility of appointing
an amicus curiae, Mr Iain Edwards and Ms Mylne Dimitri, former Counsel for Mr Badreddine, were
appointed by the Head of Defence Office as consultants for the remainder of 2016. This was in
order for them to assist a number of Defence teams, at their express request, in challenging the
evidence presented by the Prosecution on the alleged role of the late Mr Badreddine insofar as that
evidence may affect the defence of the rights and interests of the Accused that they are
representing. That mandate was extended by three months in 2017 for one of the two Counsel,
Ms Dimitri, at the request of one of the Defence teams.

Contempt cases

Al Jadeed S.A.L./ NEW T.V. S.A.L and Karma Mohamed Tahsin Al Khayat (STL-14-05)

During the appeals phase, which ended on 8 March 2016 with the Accused being acquitted of all
charges against them, the Defence team was composed of Mr Karim Khan, Mr Rodney Dixon,
Ms Shyamala Alagendra and Ms Maya Habli. Although Defence Counsel appointed in this case did
not have the benefit of legal aid, they were able however, like the other Defence teams, to avail
themselves of the Tribunals facilities, as well as benefiting from logistical and, on occasion, legal
support from the Defence Office, to whom they expressed their gratitude.

Akhbar Beirut S.A.L. and Ibrahim Mohamed Ali Al Amin (STL-14-06)

Dr Antonios Abou Kasm, a lawyer at the Beirut Bar, continued to represent the Accused in this case
throughout 2016, including during the phase of enforcement of the sentence, which was
pronounced by the Contempt Judge on 29 August 2016. It should be noted that Dr Abou Kasm

28 | P a g e
 exercises his mandate in a particular context due to the Accused refusing to appear and to appoint
a lawyer to represent them.

Dr Abou Kasm, who remains assigned until such time as the Contempt Judge relinquishes the case,
was assisted, until the sentence was imposed, by a Legal Officer and a Case Manager.

Management of legal aid

There were significant changes to staffing within the Legal Aid Unit in 2016 with, firstly, the
recruitment of a new Associate Administrative Officer and, secondly, the departure in August 2016
of the Chef de Cabinet in charge of the Unit, who left to work with the peacekeeping mission in the
Central African Republic and has since been replaced by a legal officer from the Defence Office.

Throughout the year, the Legal Aid Unit carried out a significant amount of work in order to ensure
effective financial assistance to the Defence teams: this involved processing the payment of fees to
Defence counsel, paying invoices of experts and consultants, as well as the salaries of persons
assisting counsel, and dealing with the reimbursement of travel expenses in accordance with the
current Legal Aid Policy for the Defence.

The Legal Aid Unit also managed all the human resources of the Defence teams in cooperation with
the Human Resources Section of the Registry. In particular, it managed the departure and
recruitment of persons assisting Defence counsel and the renewal of contracts for team members
already in place.

For the members of the Legal Aid Unit, a significant part of the past years activities was taken up
with managing the consequences of the death, in May 2016, of Mr Mustafa Amine Badreddine, and
in particular the end of the mandates of Counsel (including an archiving period and the
appointment of consultants for certain Defence teams). The termination of the proceedings against
Mr Badreddine resulted in a significant reduction in the Defence budget for 2017.

Operational support to the Defence teams

Defence investigations

The vacant post of Liaison Officer, based in the Beirut Office, was filled in June 2016. The Liaison
Officer is responsible for liaison between the Defence teams and the Lebanese authorities, and for
representing the Defence Office in Lebanon.

Over the past year, the Defence Office handled 26 official requests for assistance from the Defence
teams to the Lebanese authorities.

The Liaison Officer also provided support to Defence counsel for the organization of their
investigative missions and planned and organized all the missions of the Head of Defence Office to
Lebanon.

Logistical support

The Defence Office Case Manager continued to provide logistical support to all the Defence teams
throughout 2016, liaising between the Defence teams and the various sections of the Tribunal
responsible for logistical, technical and information technology-related issues, as well as with the
Office of the Prosecutor regarding the use of the Electronic Presentation of Evidence system (EPE)
before the Trial Chamber.
29 | P a g e
 The Case Manager also organized and held training sessions for members of the Defence teams on
the use of specific computer software, including Legal Workflow and Transcend.

Following the death of Mr Badreddine, the Case Manager, in close cooperation with Registry staff,
also assisted the Defence team involved in the process of archiving the case file to classify, digitize
and store all the important data from the case file in accordance with the norms established by the
Defence Office (see below, the Regulation on archiving adopted by the Head of Defence Office).

Lastly, the Defence Office Case Manager assisted the Information Services Section (ISS) of the
Tribunal in coordinating, on behalf of the Defence, the migration of all the emails of the members
of the Defence teams and the Defence Office from Lotus software to Outlook.

Legal support to the Defence teams

During the past year, the Legal Advisory Section responded to a large number of requests for legal
assistance from the Defence teams in the form of advisory opinions, memoranda, briefs, draft
submissions and appeal briefs for the Defence teams.

Over the course of 2016, the Legal Advisory Section updated its digest of decisions rendered by all
the Judges of the Tribunal in order to be able to respond rapidly to questions from the teams
regarding the Tribunals case law and thus facilitate the drafting of their motions and other
documents filed before the Tribunal. In addition, the Legal Advisory Section liaised with the Office
of the Prosecutor and Chambers so as to include them in the task of summarizing the Tribunals
decisions and ultimately to envisage a digest common to all the Organs of the Tribunal, which could
be made available to the public and thus contribute to the Tribunals outreach and legacy work.

In March 2016, members of the Legal Advisory Section also organized a training day for Defence
Counsel assigned in the Ayyash et al. case and the contempt cases, as well as members of their
Defence teams. In addition, at the request of Counsel and their team members, the Legal Advisory
Section organized training sessions specifically designed to meet their requirements in relation to
particular issues arising from the procedure applicable before the Tribunal and in preparing cross-
examinations.

Lastly, members of the Legal Advisory Section also continued their induction training sessions for
staff members and interns newly arrived in the Defence Office and the Defence teams. These
training sessions relate in particular to the state of progress of the proceedings in the various cases
pending before the Tribunal, as well as to the law and case law of the Tribunal.

Submissions filed by the Head of Defence Office pursuant to Rule 57 (F) of the Rules

During 2016, the Head of Defence Office, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 57 (F) of the
Rules of Procedure and Evidence, filed written submissions before the Trial Chamber in the Ayyash
et al. case whenever he considered that the interests of justice so required.

Thus, on 29 March 2016, the Head of Defence Office supported the appeal brief of the Defence
teams for Messrs Badreddine, Merhi and Oneissi against the Decision of the Trial Chamber to
maintain the restrictions imposed on the working conditions of Mr Omar Nashabe, who had been
working as a local resource person in Lebanon for the Defence teams for over three years without
access to confidential documents. The Head of Defence Office considered that those working
conditions adversely affect the ability of Counsel for Messrs Badreddine, Merhi and Oneissi to fulfil
their mandate to represent the rights and interests of the Accused, as well as certain rights of the
accused provided for in the Statute.
30 | P a g e
 The Head of Defence Office also filed written submissions (see the Defence Office submissions
dated 2, 8 and 16 June, 26 July and 25 August 2016) and spoke in court on several occasions in
relation to the proceedings following the death of the Accused, Mr Badreddine. Firstly, this was to
assist the Defence team representing the rights and interests of Mr Badreddine in having his death
established by the court and, secondly, to insist that neither the rights of the Accused, nor the
memory of the deceased, should be violated by the admission of evidence against the deceased
during the continuing proceedings.

Furthermore, on 30 September 2016, the Head of Defence Office filed observations on the
possibility considered by the Trial Chamber, in its Order of 22 September 2016, of appointing an
amicus curiae whose role would be to assist the Trial Chamber by their assisting the Defence in
challenging evidence specific to Mr Badreddine's role. The Head of Defence Office formally
opposed such an appointment, considering, inter alia, that there is a fundamental difference
between the role of counsel for the Defence, whose mandate is to defend the rights and interests
of an accused, and that of an amicus curiae, whose mandate is to assist the Chamber in establishing
the truth. The Head of Defence Office was concerned by the precedent that delegating functions
falling solely to Defence counsel to a third party might set, all the more so in the context of a trial in
absentia, without instructions from the Accused, who is thus unable to consent to such delegation.
The Head of Defence Office also submitted that such an appointment would be contrary to the law
applicable before the Tribunal and without precedent in international criminal law.

Consultations and exchanges with Defence Counsel

Throughout 2016, the Head of Defence Office, the Deputy Head and the other members of the
Defence Office were consulted by and maintained ongoing exchanges with Defence Counsel on
important questions of an ethical and legal nature, as well as staff management issues.

Those exchanges were found to be particularly useful in addressing the ethical and legal difficulties
encountered by a number of Defence Counsel in the Ayyash et al. case following the death of Mr
Badreddine, as well as by the Counsel representing the company Akhbar Beirut S.A.L. and Mr Al
Amin against their wishes but in accordance with the Order of the Contempt Judge.

3. Regulatory activities undertaken by the Defence Office

As with every year, the Head of Defence Office took part in the work of the Rules Committee and
proposed and defended a number of amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence before
the Judges composing that Committee.

The Head of Defence Office also adopted, in accordance with Rule 58 (B) of the Rules of Procedure
and Evidence, an internal Regulation on the closing and preservation of the case file by lead
counsel.

The Regulation adopted recalls the professional duty of all counsel to maintain, throughout the
proceedings, a complete, secure, confidential, accurate, well-organized and indexed case file, in
electronic form or, where necessary, in hard copy. It stipulates that upon termination of the
proceedings against the accused, counsel shall digitize and classify all the documents from their
case file, record the file on an electronic support and store it under seal and confidentially, either in
the offices of counsel or in the place designated for that purpose on the Tribunals premises. Lastly,
the Regulation provides that only counsel, or the Head of Defence Office in the event of emergency
or incapacity of counsel, may consult the copy of the file.

31 | P a g e
4. List and training of Defence Counsel

In the reporting period, 14 new applications were received and the admission panel held seven
interviews on 17 and 18 November 2016.

Following those interviews, six Counsel were admitted to the list, three of whom were admitted as
Lead Counsel and three as Co-Counsel. At the end of 2016, the list comprised 172 Counsel,
practising in 31 different national jurisdictions. Of that number, 15 Counsel practise in the
jurisdiction of Lebanon.

A training course will be organized in 2017 for Counsel who have recently been admitted to the list.

In addition, between 14 and 18 November 2016, Mr Benot Henry, a lawyer at the Quebec Bar
acting as a consultant for the Defence Office, met Defence Counsel and their team members as part
of the efforts on the part of the Office to bring about improvements to the capabilities of the
Defence. That consultation is part of the ongoing team monitoring process undertaken by the
Defence Office since 2013 on the initiative of the Head of Defence Office, and duly complements
the mechanisms put in place by the Defence Office for monitoring the effectiveness of the
representation of the accused by Defence counsel assigned for that purpose.

5. Institutional activities of the Defence Office

Participation of the Head of Defence Office in the internal functioning of the Tribunal

The Head of Defence Office, together with the three other Heads of Organ, took part in the
monthly meetings of the Tribunals Senior Management Board, and in various internal events,
including town hall meetings, as well as external events, such as diplomatic briefings.

The Head of Defence Office also made the views of the Defence at the Tribunal heard when he
spoke to members of the Tribunals Management Committee, to stakeholders in the United
Nations, as well as to embassies based in The Hague and in Lebanon. In this capacity, during two
missions to New York, in April and December 2016, Mr Roux met members of the Management
Committee, the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs of the UN, as well as the Assistant
Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, and discussed with them the challenges facing the Defence
before the Tribunal. The Defence Office also facilitated a meeting between Defence Counsel and
members of the Management Committee during their visit to the seat of the Tribunal in May 2016.
For the first time in the history of the international tribunals, Defence Counsel have been able to
meet directly with the Management Committee in order to share their concerns and discuss the
challenges that they face.

Institutional representation of the Defence outside the Tribunal

The Defence Office, primarily through its Head and Deputy Head, takes part in activities relating to
the institutional representation of the Defence outside the Tribunal through a variety of activities
as set out below.

32 | P a g e
 Missions to Lebanon

The Defence Office organized two missions to Lebanon, from 14 to 18 March 2016 and from 17 to
20 October 2016. During these visits, the Head of Defence Office met the Prime Minister, the
Minister of the Interior, the Director of General Security, the President of the Progressive Socialist
Party, as well members of the diplomatic community based in Lebanon. The Head of Defence Office
also took part in a number of conferences and met the new President of the Beirut Bar Association,
as well as members of the Committee of the Beirut Bar responsible for monitoring the work of the
Tribunal.

Maintaining and developing institutional relations with the national bar associations

As part of their mandate, the Head of Defence Office and Deputy Head have forged important links
with national bar associations. As such, in January 2016, the Deputy Head of Defence Office
attended the 10th Annual Meeting of the German Association of Defence Counsel at the
International Criminal Tribunals in Berlin, Germany. Also in January, the Head of Defence Office met
the Deputy President of the Paris Bar. He also attended the closing ceremony of the judicial year of
The Hague Bar Association in June 2016 at the invitation of the President of The Hague Bar
Association.

Participation of the Head and the Deputy Head of Defence Office in conferences and events

Over the course of the past year, the Head and Deputy Head of Defence Office attended a number
of conferences and events during which they explained the role of the Defence and the challenges
it faces in terrorist trials held in absentia before the Tribunal. They also described the contribution
the Defence Office makes as an independent organ within the international criminal justice system.
They attended these events at the invitation of various bodies, including the International
Nuremberg Principles Academy, the International Bar Association and the Office of Public Counsel
for the Defence of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Presentation of the Defences work to groups visiting the Tribunal

Over the course of the year, various members of the Legal Advisory Section gave presentations, in
the three official languages of the Tribunal as well as Spanish, to the 78 groups that visited the
Tribunal in 2016. The presentations covered the issues and challenges Defence Counsel practising
before the Tribunal encounter, and the role of the Defence Office.

Fourth Meetings of Defence Offices (London)

The Defence Office organized the Fourth International Meetings of Defence Offices, on 25 and
26 November 2016, in partnership with the International Bar Association. The Meetings were held
at Middle Temple and the Law Society in London, United Kingdom, in the presence of the President
of the Tribunal.

These Meetings, which over the years have become a major feature in the landscape of
international criminal justice, brought together representatives of the Defence Offices and Sections
of the ICC; the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; the Mechanism for
International Criminal Tribunals; the Special Tribunal for Lebanon; lawyers practising before
international and national criminal jurisdictions; representatives of various national bar
associations (the Criminal Bar of England and Wales, the Geneva Bar, Paris Bar and the Beirut Bar);
and international lawyers professional bodies (the International Bar Association, the International
Criminal Court Bar Association, the International Criminal Bar, the French National Bar Council and
33 | P a g e
 the International Association of Lawyers), but also other actors and observers from the field of
international criminal justice, including university professors with an interest in the subject.

This year, the main focus of the Fourth Meetings was on two specific projects, namely the
establishment of a Joint Code of Ethics for all lawyers practising before the international criminal
tribunals and the drafting of a Practical Guide to Investigations designed specifically for Defence
counsel and members of their teams.

Significant headway was made on these two projects during the Meetings, and the work will
continue within the working groups so that the Joint Code and the Guide to Investigations may be
adopted at the Fifth Meetings, which are to be held in Nuremberg in November 2017 in partnership
with the International Nuremberg Principles Academy.

6. Measures implemented in 2016

As anticipated in its previous report, over the past year the Defence Office has had to contend with
the consequences of the length of the trial for the professional activity of Defence counsel. 2016
saw the departure of two Defence Counsel in the case of Ayyash et al. who, for personal reasons,
were unable to remain until the end of the trial. In addition, the Legal Aid Unit put into effect the
amendments to the Legal Aid Policy for the Defence adopted the previous year and which concern
the possibility of part-time work for Defence counsel and the implementation of measures to
ensure more efficient legal aid management.

The Defence Office and Defence Counsel have worked with a constructive approach to find
solutions to expedite the proceedings. To this end, they drafted a set of proposals and concrete
measures which they forwarded to the Office of the Prosecutor and submitted to the members of
the Management Committee during their visit in May 2016.

Lastly, as intimated in the previous report, the Head of Defence Office continued throughout 2016
to argue in favour of the legal, cultural and linguistic diversity that constitutes the richness of the
Tribunal. In particular, he has striven to ensure that legal and linguistic diversity continues to be
reflected within the Defence teams and the Defence Office in order that they are fully equipped to
respond to the challenges presented by the cases before the Tribunal. That diversity is reflected in
particular by the appointment of Lebanese and Arabic-speaking lawyers to the teams and to the
Defence Office.

The Head of Defence Office has continued to lament the fact that the transcripts of the hearings,
which are an important part of the functioning of the Tribunal, are not always available
simultaneously in French and in Arabic.

This quest for diversity also helped ensure the success of the Fourth Meetings, which were held in
London, in the United Kingdom, and which brought together various actors and observers of the
Defence before the international criminal jurisdictions. The Meetings have helped foster links
between the various organizations representing the Defence before these jurisdictions and the
national bars, while recognizing the special role that the Defence Office of the Tribunal plays for all
those actors from the field of international criminal justice.

34 | P a g e
7. The Way Forward

The next reporting period should see the end of the presentation of the Prosecution evidence, the
participation of the victims and the presentation of the exculpatory evidence by the Defence.

The various sections of the Defence Office will therefore have to anticipate all the issues and
difficulties that the Defence teams will inevitably encounter during this crucial period and adapt the
assistance provided to them to those particular circumstances.

The Defence Office is also prepared for the possibility of any future contempt cases in 2017. The
Legal Aid Unit therefore has a portion of its budget frozen in anticipation of that eventuality. The
Legal Advisory Section for its part is also ready to receive, train and assist Counsel and their teams
on any legal issues that might arise.

Over the course of the coming year, the Defence Office will organize the Fifth Meetings of the
Defence, which will be held from 9 to 11 November 2017 in courtroom 600 of the Nuremberg
Tribunal in Germany, and which will once again bring together various actors and observers of the
Defence before the international criminal jurisdictions. This event will also provide an opportunity
for the Defence Office to finalize the two projects initiated during the Fourth International
Meetings of the Defence: the Joint Code of Ethics for all lawyers practising before international
criminal tribunals, and the Practical Guide to Defence Investigations. These two projects will be
adopted during the Fifth Meetings in Nuremberg and published at the end of 2017.

35 | P a g e
D. Registry 5

1. Introduction

The Registry is an integrated support and assistance infrastructure which enables and facilitates the
smooth conduct of the judicial proceedings. This intertwined network of services is directed by the
Registrar, who also ensures that the Tribunal carries out its mandate with utmost fiscal efficiency.

During the last twelve months, the Registrys highest overarching responsibility remained the
effective support to and servicing of the judicial proceedings. Stemming from this central
responsibility, additional fundamental priorities included: the efficient administration of the
Tribunal; engaging the public about the Tribunals work; ensuring its safety and security; and
obtaining the political, financial and operational support required for the successful completion of
the Tribunals mandate. This diverse, yet integrated, network of services directly enabled the
judicial proceedings to unfold by facilitating the trial and all courtroom participants.

During the second half of the year, the Registrar also identified a series of initiatives aimed at
strengthening the Registrys integrated approach, highlighting the expertise of each Registry
Section and the collaborative nature of the Registrys team. In that vein, the Registry optimized
operations to increase efficiencies for the current and future Tribunal requirements. Consistent
with these initiatives is a commitment to prioritizing the Tribunals strategic plan.

The majority of the Registrys operations fall under the Division of Judicial Support Services or the
Division of Administration. These Divisions are complemented by the Public Information and
Communications Section and the Security and Safety Section.

2. Effective judicial support

The Division of Judicial Support Services delivered efficient, impartial and reliable: court
management; translation and interpretation language services; assistance to victims participating in
the proceedings; support and protection to witnesses and victims; and information management
and technological services. These services, which were facilitated through corresponding Registry
Sections, formed the backbone of the Registrys effective judicial support and highlighted the
dynamic operations required to facilitate a complex trial.

Further, the Division of Judicial Support Services had multiple collaborative achievements during
this reporting period. These included organizing logistical support for witnesses to testify from third
countries, preparing support for the Electronic Presentation of Evidence software and drafting
documents to help enable the efficient administration of justice. These accomplishments were
made possible through the efficient use, or realignment, of internal resources, particularly through
cross-training initiatives to increase the Divisions capacity.

5
This section has been prepared by the Registrar.

36 | P a g e
 Court management

During the year, the Court Management Services Section (CMSS) supported the proceedings with
the processing of 899 filings, corresponding to 10,185 pages of official court documents. It also
implemented the seamless processing and distribution of 300 transcripts in the Tribunals three
languages, corresponding to a total of 21,623 pages. It further served as the in-court Registry
representative during court proceedings by providing a Court Officer and a Courtroom Clerk at each
hearing in Leidschendam, as well as a Court Officer when witnesses testified from the Beirut Office.

Language Services

As the Tribunal has three official languages (Arabic, French and English), the Language Services
Section (LSS) continued to support the multilingual judicial proceedings through the provision of
translation and interpretation language services to all Organs. In addition, it also supported the
Tribunals field investigations and public information and communications activities.

During the reporting period, the LSS delivered 27,872 translation pages to clients across the
Tribunal in its three official languages, provided interpretation services amounting to 1,049
interpreter days, and additional services comprising of 1,551 days of editing and transcription
services.

In addition, the LSS continued to build upon its long-standing relationships with Lebanese
universities and language professionals by welcoming interns and by participating in training
events.

Assistance to victims participating in the proceedings

The Victims Participation Unit (VPU) played a strategic role in implementing the rights of victims
pursuant to the Tribunals legal framework, including by facilitating the participation of victims
through their own designated counsel; and bridging the gap between the seat of the Tribunal and
Lebanon, where the vast majority of the victims are located.

The VPU continued supporting and monitoring the work of the Legal Representative for Victims
(LRV) over the past year. Representation for indigent victims was facilitated through the
Tribunals legal aid policy, as administered by the VPU.

Further, the VPU facilitated the attendance of 14 Victims Participating in the Proceedings (VPP) at
the Ayyash et al. trial in Leidschendam. These visits provided VPPs with first hand exposure to trial
proceedings, contextualizing the environment in which accountability is being sought on their
behalf. The visits also provided a valuable opportunity for the Registry, through the VPU, to engage
directly with the VPPs and understand the personal impact of their participation and for the VPPs
to engage with the Registry on institutional issues that impact their rights.

The VPU also facilitated meetings between the LRV and more than 20 VPPs. This helped enable the
LRV to exercise its client-attorney responsibilities. These responsibilities include updating victims in-
person on the status of proceedings, responding to VPPs questions and taking instructions from
clients to prepare for the presentation of its case.

37 | P a g e
 Support and protection to witnesses and victims

The Victims and Witnesses Unit (VWU) continued to support the Tribunals proceedings by
ensuring the secure and timely appearance of victims and witnesses. The VWU maintained the
required analytical and risk assessment procedures to independently review and assess requests
for procedural protective measures introduced in the proceedings by the OTP, the Defence or the
LRV. The VWU also maintained its operational capability to provide protection, support and
emergency response services to victims, witnesses, and others at risk on account of testimony, or
their interaction with the Tribunal, when required.

The continued potential risks to victims and witnesses remained a key challenge. The VWU
continued to seek the support and cooperation of States to ensure effective and sustainable
witness protection and support arrangements, in the form of relocation agreements and other
types of operational assistance, which remain of vital importance for the work of the VWU and the
success of the Tribunal.

Information management and technological services

During the reporting period, the Information Services Section (ISS) supported the proceedings by
providing comprehensive information management and technological support to all of the
Tribunals Organs. In addition, the ISS successfully completed the streamlining and optimization of
many of the Tribunals information systems which aim to serve the Tribunals needs, in particular
those of the trial, for the remainder of the mandate.

The ISS recorded a number of achievements during this reporting period. The Tribunals award
winning Legal Workflow 6 system was upgraded as part of a regular maintenance cycle, and as a
cumulative total processed 8,019 filings, contained 11,791 pieces of evidence and stored 188,267
documents. The Tribunal sold the Legal Workflow application to another international court for its
own court management system, generating revenue for the Tribunals budget. 7 Its market value is
further proven by requests from other judicial entities to demonstrate the system.

The ISS continued to ensure that the Tribunals technology is fit for purpose. It did so by updating,
upgrading and replacing aging systems to ensure that critical systems and technology are
operational, efficient, secure and cost-effective. In this regard, the ISS migrated the Tribunals email
platform and telephone systems, and worked to uphold effective cyber-security. It further reviewed
how to manage the Tribunals technological administrative systems which are becoming obsolete.

During the reporting period, the Library welcomed an average of 81 visitors per month and played a
vital role in providing research assistance by processing 1,060 requests and by conducting research
trainings. In addition to the print books collection, out of which 1,569 were consulted or loaned,
the Library provided access to legal e-books to facilitate research in connection to the judicial
proceedings. In addition, the Library continued to make the Tribunals jurisprudence available to
the public through the Legal Tools Database and maintained relations with other international
courts and organisations.

6
Legal Workflow is the Tribunals judicial information system, which allows for the effective administration of judicial
information and processes at all stages of a case.
7
The Legal Workflow remains the Tribunals property.

38 | P a g e
3. Efficient administration

The Division of Administration delivered efficient support to all Tribunal Organs, including:
recruitment, human resources management and financial services; preparation, presentation and
implementation of the Tribunals budget; delivery of procurement services; facilities management
and common services; and other services that were required for the efficient administration of the
Tribunal. These administrative services facilitated the judicial proceedings, and ensured that fiscal
responsibility was exercised throughout the Tribunal such that operations were undertaken with
utmost efficiency and minimal costs.

During the last year, the External Auditor of the Tribunal certified its seventh audit which found no
material errors or weaknesses and provided an unqualified opinion on the 2015 financial
statements. The Tribunal continued to promote internal control and risk management.

Human and financial resources

During the reporting period, the Human and Financial Resources Services Section (HFRS) provided
the recruitment, human resources management and financial services required to support the
operational needs of the Tribunal. All Judges, lawyers, consultants and staff inside, and out, of the
courtroom, were supported by the HFRS. Through supporting the Tribunals workforce planning,
processing payments to vendors, administering contracts, preparing the Tribunals financial
statements and monitoring its accounts, the HFRS assisted the judicial proceedings by facilitating
the Tribunals personnel and by overseeing its payments.

By the end of 2016, 434 staff members were employed by the Tribunal, 67 of whom work in the
Beirut Office. Sixty-four nationalities are represented at the Tribunal. Sixty-nine staff members are
Lebanese, representing 15% of the total number of staff. The gender distribution is 45% female and
55% male.

In addition, 55 interns participated in the work of the Tribunal during 2016 and efforts continue to
increase the interest of Lebanese students to participate in the internship programme. Additionally,
the National Visiting Professionals programme provides Lebanese lawyers the opportunity to gain
experience at the Tribunal

Budget

The Budget Unit drafted, monitored and accurately reported on the Tribunals annual budget.
These efforts ensured that trial operations continued with the efficient management of Tribunal
funds. As in previous years, the 2017 budget is based on parameters set through intensive
consultations with the Tribunals Principals. Budget-limiting measures focused on areas that have
the least detrimental effect on the Tribunals anticipated judicial activities. The Tribunals budget
for 2017 was approved at EUR 59.0 million, a decrease of 6% when compared to 2016.

Procurement services

Over the course of the last year, the Procurement Section (PS) provided strategic advice and
operational support to ensure that the Tribunals resources were used efficiently and that the
Tribunal adheres to the best value for money principle. In this regard, the PS supported judicial
activities by initiating new tender processes, by negotiating with vendors and by completing various
contract renewals and/or extensions. In so doing, it worked in close collaboration with all Registry
Sections and Organs to issue, monitor and administer an estimated 460 contracts in its continued

39 | P a g e
 support of trial activities. For instance, the PS renegotiated the contract for court transcription
services. This ensured the continuity of transcription services and thus directly facilitated the
judicial proceedings.

Facilities management and common services

The General Services Section (GSS) is composed of the Common Services Unit and the Facilities
Management Unit. During the reporting period, these units provided a diverse range of services to
the Tribunal including transportation, mail, travel, visa, graphics, reproduction and asset
management. Furthermore, the GSS provided building management, maintenance and space
planning services, and in this regard completed several projects including the improvement of the
water, sewage and security systems. By ensuring that the Tribunals premises, assets and
infrastructure continue to function appropriately, the GSS facilitated judicial activities within the
Tribunals buildings in The Hague and Beirut.

4. Engaging the public

The Public Information and Communications Section (PICS) provided timely and accurate
information to the public on the Tribunals activities and mandate. It made the judicial proceedings
accessible to people in Lebanon and around the world by briefing journalists, responding to media
queries, providing information on social media, organizing conferences and workshops, and closely
following developments in Lebanon. The PICS consists of the Outreach and Legacy Unit based in
Beirut and the Public Affairs Unit based in Leidschendam. In addition, communications with the
media are handled by the Tribunals Spokesperson.

The PICS continued to explain the work of the Tribunal within the broader context of international
justice. This was achieved through conferences, trainings, lectures and an academic course. One
highlight was the continuation of the Tribunals Inter-University Programme on International
Criminal Law and Procedure which currently has 11 participating universities. 8 With no
specialization in international criminal law offered at any Lebanese university, the programme was
the first of its kind to teach, at no cost to students, this subject to a new generation of students.
Since its commencement, 623 students have graduated from the programme and a number of
alumni have interned or worked for the Tribunal. The programmes success has also led to recent
discussions about creating a local legal entity in Lebanon which would implement the programme
in the future.

Last year the programme concluded its fifth academic year with 173 graduating students. The top
students, in addition to the universities deans and professors, visited The Hagues international
courts to experience the field first hand. In the fall, the programme launched its sixth academic
year with 225 students. Also during this period, as part of competition to earn a study visit to The
Hague, a number of alumni gave presentations about the Tribunal and international criminal justice
to Lebanese high school students.

8
Academic University College for Non-Violence and Human Rights, American University of Beirut, American University of
Science and Technology, Beirut Arab University, Islamic University of Lebanon, Lebanese American University, Notre
Dame University, Universit La Sagesse, Universit Libanaise, Universit Saint-Esprit de Kaslik and Universit Saint-
Joseph.

40 | P a g e
 The PICS utilized the Tribunals website, social media platforms, publications and group visits to
disseminate information and engage the public about the judicial proceedings. The Tribunals
website remained its principal source of public information, receiving nearly 250,000 visits in
2016the highest number of which come from the Netherlands and Lebanon. The website also
houses the video and audio streaming of the trial proceedings. Further, the website underwent
structural changes and content updates to respond better to the publics needs.

Social media continued to be a potent tool in communicating the Tribunals work. The Tribunals
Twitter followers exceeded 22,700the second highest number of followers among international
criminal tribunals. The Tribunal's Facebook followers additionally grew, reaching 2,732 Likes. The
PICS also catered for various audiences on LinkedIn, YouTube and Flickr.

The Tribunals printed publications continued to be updated and disseminated in Arabic, English
and French. This included the STL Bulletin, which provided a monthly overview of judicial and
non-judicial developments at the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal published 29 press releases and
media advisories.

During the past year, there was a substantial increase in public visits to the Tribunal. Seventy-eight
groups composed of 1,737 participants from 107 countries visited the Tribunal, representing an
increase of 8% over the previous year. Eight-hundred-and-twenty-five of these participants
observed proceedings from the Tribunals public gallery.

In Lebanon, most Tribunal hearings were covered by media outlets on a daily basis. The
Spokesperson continued to engage and brief journalists based in Lebanon and around the world.
She also facilitated press interviews and briefings by the Principals to numerous Lebanese, Arab and
international media outlets.

5. Security and Safety

The Tribunals Security and Safety Section (SSS) continued to support all Organs by effectively
providing and facilitating the necessary levels of security and safety of personnel, programmes,
facilities and assets. The SSS prioritized the security, safety and well-being of staff and assets in
compliance with the Security Management Framework, which regulates the strategic direction and
governance of security at the Tribunal.

6. Securing support

Throughout the reporting period, the Registrar implemented comprehensive strategies to secure
the political, financial, legal and operational support required for the successful completion of the
Tribunals mandate.

This included maintaining relations with the diplomatic community in The Hague and Europe, Beirut
and the Middle East, and New York and North America. Through the formulation and
implementation of a robust fundraising policy, the Registrar ensured adequate and continued
funding for the Tribunals activities with the support of the Management Committee.

Since 2009, 28 states have contributed to the Tribunal. This includes Lebanons contribution, and
voluntary contributions or in-kind support from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, the
Czech Republic, Denmark, the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,

41 | P a g e
 Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, Sweden, the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States of America,
Uruguay and other states.

The Registry continued to receive on-going support and cooperation from the Government of
Lebanon. Additionally, it enjoyed the continued cooperation and support of the Government of the
Netherlands in relation to the Tribunals premises, its external security, the issuance of visas and
residence permits, in addition to other matters.

Further, the Tribunal enjoyed continued cooperation with the international courts and
organizations based in The Hague, including: an information-sharing session; joint training sessions
for Registry Sections; collaborative organization of outreach events; technical support; assistance in
language services; and inter-library loans. Such mutual assistance contributed to internal cost
efficiencies.

7. Tribunal premises outside the Netherlands

Beirut Office

All Tribunal Organs were represented with resident staff in the Beirut Office. To support their work,
the Registry in Beirut provided all necessary administrative, logistical and security assistance.
Further, in 2016 the Beirut Office supported close to 80 missions by Leidschendam-based staff and
the Tribunals Principals.

Specific Beirut-based activities in the areas of outreach, victims participation and witness support
continued through the reporting period. The Beirut Office also continued to support the CMSS and,
in the Ayyash et al. trial, numerous witness testimonies were heard remotely from the Beirut
Office. The technical systems for supporting such witness testimony were upgraded to ensure
quality of transmission.

New York Liaison Office

In New York, the Liaison Office supported the Management Committee in its consideration of the
Tribunals financial and administrative matters, including by providing background information and
responding to the queries of the Management Committees members. The Liaison Office also
regularly updated the Management Committees members about the Tribunals relevant
developments. The Liaison Office continued to offer political advice to the Registrar and to
coordinate fundraising in New York. It also ensured that interested States, UN departments and
NGOs were informed of the work and challenges of the Tribunal. Finally, the Liaison Office helped
organize visits of representatives from all Organs to New York, Washington DC and Ottawa
throughout the reporting period.

42 | P a g e
8. The Way Forward

Looking forward, the Registrar will continue to enable and facilitate the smooth conduct of the
judicial proceedings by working as a unified support and assistance network. Equally, it will ensure
that the Tribunal carries out its mandate with maximum fiscal restraint and efficiency.

In this light, the Registrar adopted a series of strategic priorities for the coming year: ensuring
effective support and servicing of the judicial proceedings; providing efficient administration of the
Tribunal; securing continued support for its work; and ensuring a safe and secure work
environment. In addition to these on-going priorities the Registrar will focus on the development of
a strategic plan and a forward thinking fundraising policy. In doing so, he will look to how the
Registry can further optimize operations and collaborate as one Registry team.

43 | P a g e
PART III CONCLUSION

The Tribunal remains primarily focused on completing judicial proceedings in the Ayyash et al. case.
While there is still work to be done in this regard, considerable progress was made during the
reporting period.

The introduction by the Prosecution, for the first time in an international criminal trial, of highly
complex and technical telecommunications evidencewhich goes to the heart of the Prosecution
casehas been at the core of the Tribunals judicial work. The Tribunal has risen to the challenge of
balancing the pace of complicated trial proceedings with the legitimate aim of ensuring fairness to
the Defence.

The Tribunal has done so while navigating complications posed by circumstances that necessitated
amendments to the Indictment in the main case and the subsequent impact on trial proceedings,
including changes to the presentation of evidence and the temporary suspension of trial
proceedings. The Prosecutor has continued his investigations into the three connected cases. At the
same time, the Tribunal has conducted two separate contempt proceedings.

Redoubling of efforts to promote the effective functioning and the good administration of justice
resulted in the Trial Chamber and parties committing themselves to a schedule that should see the
completion of the Prosecutions case-in-chief in the coming months. Moreover, the Tribunal strives
to increase efficiency, transparency and accountability and to optimize the use of its resources. It
remains committed to further achievements in this respect in the year ahead.

Entrusted with bringing to justice those accused of participation in the 14 February 2005 attack
which killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 21 others, injured 226 more and left
deep scars in the hearts and minds of the Lebanese community, the Tribunal and its personnel are
cognizant of the high expectations rightly placed upon them. By virtue of the Statute, each Organ
plays a different role in striving towards completion of the Tribunals mandate, yet each has
demonstrated their commitment to the Tribunals pursuit of truth and the delivery of justice.
Cooperation between the Organs resulted in harmonized efforts to ensure the Tribunal functions
effectively. Collectively, the Tribunals Organs have been guided by the understanding that this is a
Tribunal for Lebanon: for the victims of the attack; for those affected by it; for those seeking the
truth or motivated by the pursuit of criminal justice through strong and independent judicial
institutions; and for the Lebanese community as a whole.

The Tribunal recognizes the role of ongoing collaboration with Lebanon in its day-to-day
functioning. In combination with the assistance provided by the wider international community,
this support facilitates an institutional legacy that extends beyond the historic, fair and impartial
international trials of individuals accused of acts of terrorism, conducted within the Tribunals walls.
It is a legacy that incorporates a body of new jurisprudence, interactions with the Lebanese
authorities and legal communities, and lasting contributions to the mechanisms of international
justice.

In the year that follows, the Tribunal will continue to build upon this legacy as it works towards
delivering the concrete results expected by our stakeholders, the victims of the crime of terrorism,
and the Lebanese community.

44 | P a g e
 Special Tribunal for Lebanon
Geographical Representation of International Staff Recruited at the
Professional Level and Higher and in the FS Categories
As of 31 December 2016

Number of Number of
State State
State nationals State nationals
Argentina 2 Japan 1
Australia 15 Jordan 2
Austria 1 Kenya 3
Bangladesh 1 Lebanon 23
Barbados 1 Malaysia 1
Belgium 3 Montenegro 1
Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 Nepal 1
Brazil 1 The Netherlands 12
Canada 25 Republic of Moldova 1
China 1 Romania 4
Colombia 1 Russian Federation 4
Czech Republic 1 Serbia 1
Denmark 1 Sierra Leone 1
Egypt 5 Slovakia 1
Estonia 1 South Africa 5
Fiji 1 Spain 4
France 20 Sudan 1
Germany 5 Sweden 2
Greece 1 TFYR of Macedonia 2
Haiti 1 Tunisia 2
Hungary 2 Turkey 1
India 1 Ukraine 2
Iran 1 United Kingdom 31
Iraq 1 United Rep. of Tanzania 1
Ireland 10 United States of America 13
Italy 4

Total Staff 230

45 | P a g e
 Special Tribunal for Lebanon
Geographical Representation of General Services Staff
As of 31 December 2016

Number of Number of
State State
State nationals State nationals
Albania 1 Latvia 1
Australia 1 Lebanon 46
Belgium 2 Nepal 1
Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 The Netherlands 56
Brazil 1 New Zealand 1
Bulgaria 2 Pakistan 3
Cameroon 1 Poland 1
Canada 2 Romania 4
Croatia 2 Serbia 4
Egypt 1 Sierra Leone 7
Ethiopia 1 South Africa 1
Finland 1 Sudan 2
France 15 Sweden 1
Ghana 2 Tunisia 3
Iraq 2 Uganda 2
Ireland 5 United Kingdom 17
Italy 1 United States of America 6
Kenya 3 Uzbekistan 1

Total Staff 204

46 | P a g e