To Be (Present) or Not To Be (Present): Trials In Absentia before the Special Tribunal for Lebanon

One feature of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (‘STL’)differentiating it from other international criminal tribunals(except for the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal) isthat its Statute allows for trials in absentia. The Statutepermits such trials when an accused failed to appear in courtor even to appoint a defence lawyer, but only on the conditionthat, where the indictment could not be served or notified tothe accused, it was duly publicized through the media or communicatedto the state of residence or nationality of the accused. Followingthe case law of the European Court of Human Rights, Article22(3) of the STL Statute allows for retrial, except where anabsent defendant was represented at trial by counsel of hisor her own choosing. The author argues this right to retrialshould not be applied either where (i) the accused expresslywaived in writing his right to be present, but then failed toappoint counsel of his choosing; or (ii) a state's failure tohand the accused over to the STL does not cure the accused'srefusal to voluntarily surrender to the STL. She also arguesthat the right of retrial following trials in absentia oughtto accrue to Lebanese courts, notwithstanding Article 5(1) ofthe Statute, which seems to prohibit Lebanese courts retryingindividuals convicted by the STL. Finally, she takes into accountthe position of states that prohibit trials in absentia, butare requested to surrender a person convicted in absentia bythe STL for the purpose of executing his sentence, suggestingan ad hoc agreement between the state in question and the STLmay be required as a remedy.