The letter sent to the militart Court in English

هذه الصفحة باللغة العربية

To the Permanent Military Court in Beirut- Lebanon,

To the Government Commissioner at the Military Court

Brigadier General Nizar Khalil,

Judge Mr. Danny Zaani,

Colonel George Hanna,

Judge Saqr Saqr,

From  Nour Merheb
(Defendant in case No. 2769 \ 2008)

I send you this letter while I have knowledge of the laws in force that govern your work and of the possible consequences sending this letter may incur and that may affect the result of this case.

Martin Luther King said: “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

Two years have passed since the beginning of my trial before the military court based on unfair charges and forgotten justice, throughout which i have witnessed various types of violations. Every time I surrendered myself to you, to obey the law, an internal battle erupted between my conscience and what my logical thinking dictated to me.

The reason why I accepted to attend the military court hearings in the first place was to prove that I am innocent beyond any doubt, even though the legal rule requires the prosecution to prove that I am guilty beyond any doubt. But I was never sure of the impartiality of the military court especially that the pre-trial proceedings confirmed this observation, and specifically since your military command asked me to pay the medical fees and compensation for the temporary incapacity of attending work it paid for the soldier that attacked me and tried to incriminate me. All this despite the fact that the investigation of the military police proved that I should bear no responsibility and hence it proved my innocence as to the fabricated charges by the written  testimony of the military investigator recorded in the report rasied to you, and in which he literally wrote:
“It was concluded from the investigation that officer” J.Z.” interfered in a disagreement that does not concern him, especially since he is a member in the committee of the building where he resides and he came to blows with the so-called Merheb. The investigation did not find that the latter held out a knife against him – Officer “J.Z.” number: xxxxx, from the General Inspectorate at the Ministry of Defense, shall hold the following responsibility: – on 07/02/2008, in the locality of New Rawda, he came to blows with a civilian, not to mention that he is also a member of the building committee and he interferes in its affairs without any right.”

In addition, I send you this letter, first, to extend my apologies to you because my acceptance to be tried before the military court is similar to a soldier’s betrayal of his country and it is a betrayal of the values of justice and the duty of citizenship before injustice and thus a betrayal to you as citizens, as well as a betrayal to my personal values. Secondly, I send you this letter to apologize to myself, because my decision to prove my innocence before I declared my current position brought me distress for more than two years while witnessing the kinds of violations occurring in the corridors of the military court, and thirdly, to apologize to all the people who ever heard me lecturing them on how to deal with injustice and tyranny.

The history of the military courts is one of the darkest pages in the history of Lebanon. How many people lost their life unjustly and wrongfully and never had the right to defend themselves in the name of the law and the Lebanese people? How many prisoners of conscience, political prisoners and human rights activists lost their jobs and their future because they were unjustly imprisoned? How many students were beaten, tortured, hung forcibly (method of torture) and suffered deep distress from the oppression they were subjected to only for distributing a flyer or a publication that your military or political command did not like?

How many people, like Ms. Maguie Karam, mother of six, were tortured, beaten and imprisoned for days, weeks and even months in bathrooms in use? How many Lebanese people and Citizens like Nu’man Abou Antoun, Huda Yammine, Hikmat Dib, Elie Keyrouz, Tony Orian, Paul Bassil, Elsie Mfarej, Salman Samaha and Jean Paul Dib … and how many writers and thinkers, such as Adonis Alakra, Toufic Al Hindi, Habib Younis and Antoine Bassil … and how many students like Mario Chamoun, Rami Saliba and Ziad Abi Nader … and hundreds of others … were prosecuted and persecuted, detained and beaten, tortured, imprisoned and oppressed? How many people like Gaby Karam and his wife, Hala were tried and convicted several times for the same charges, and that contrary to the most basic legal norms and humanitarian values?

Bad laws are the worst form of tyranny and people crushed by law have no hope but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws; “and those, who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous”, You know that the laws change according to who writes them, but justice remains justice and does not change.

Some laws are not written but they are more legitimate than all laws. Those laws are my weapon and shield, and with them I face today the tyranny and injustice of this Court; these laws are the laws of justice and human rights, many of which were written in the Lebanese law and many are not written therein yet.

However, since the laws of this country still do not prevent the strong from crushing the weak,

And since I am weak and I have no weapon but the human conscience and humanitarian rights,

Therefore,

I declare your military court illegitimate, denounce the illegitimacy of all its issued decisions and procedures and invite you to resign from your posts in the name of human conscience and in defense of human rights and dignity as well as of the dignity of the Lebanese citizens.

Edmund Burke said: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. I decided not to be quiet anymore whatever is the cost of my speaking!

The veracity of my declaration of the illegitimacy of your court is confirmed by international laws and treaties, as well as by the recommendations of international Human Rights committees and organizations, such as the recommendations of the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations on April 1997: “The Committee expresses concern about the broad scope of the jurisdiction of military courts in Lebanon, especially its extension beyond disciplinary matters and its application to civilians. It is also concerned about the procedures followed by these military courts, as well as the lack of supervision of the military courts’ procedures and verdicts by the ordinary courts. The State party should review the jurisdiction of the military courts and transfer the competence of military courts, in all trials concerning civilians and in all cases concerning the violation of human rights by members of the military, to the ordinary courts.”

The independence of the judiciary is a perequisite and a key guarantee for achieving justice in the society and for the protection of human rights. Indeed, without an independent judiciary the rights and freedoms of the citizens become vulnerable to abuse and assault, whether by the executive or legislative authority or by the powerful people in the authority. The goal of the judiciary can not be achieved without judges enjoying impartiality, integrity, honesty competence and ability to issue judgments according to the rules of law, with complete impartiality and far from any external influence, physical or mental, by anyone, whether an authority or an individual, and whatever is the objective of this influence, whether political, social, partisan, functional, economic or else.

In this context, I refer to Articles 7 to 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that confirms both the principle of equality before the law and the presumption of innocence. Article 10 stipulates that: “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”

Therefore, in application of the provisions of the Lebanese Constitution and article 2 of the Code of Civil Procedures that give the precedence to the provisions of international treaties over the provisions of ordinary law, when it comes to implementation, the treaties ratified by Lebanon enter into force within the domestic law as soon as they are published in the Official Gazette.

Moreover, the Constitutional Council has interpreted Article 20 of the Constitution (resolution No. 2/95, dated 02/25/1995), deciding that “According to the text of this article (article 20 of the Constitution) there are some personal rights (guarantees) that must be preserved for judges and litigants in order to provide for the requirements of independence for the judicial system and protect the right of counsel for defense, whereas any detraction of those personal rights leads to the violation of the constitutional article that expressly stipulates the requisiteness of such guarantees” (resolution No. 5/2000, dated 06/27/2000). In another resolution (resolution No. 1/99, dated 11/23/1999 and published in the Official Gazette, issue No. 56 dated 11/25/1999), the Constitutional Council also confirmed that the legislative authority shall not be entitled to reduce or modify the stipulated guarantees, unless other broader and more efficient are provided for. “And given that, when enacting a law dealing with fundamental rights and freedoms, the legislator cannot alter or cancel the effective legal texts guarantying these freedoms, without substituting them for texts that offer more guarantees or that offer at least the same efficiency and guarantees. In other words, the legislator shall not be entitled to weaken the guarantees he approved by virtue of previous laws, in terms of fundamental right or freedom, and that whether by canceling such guarantees without compensating them or by substituting them for less powerful and efficient guarantees. “

Given that military courts are organized according to law No. 24, dated April 13, April (Code of Military Courts); and since these courts fall within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense that exercises over them the same powers the Ministry of Justice exercises over civil courts,

and given that this law eliminates the fundamental guarantees that are given to citizens by other laws, such as the old Criminal Procedure Code and the Lebanese Constitution, as well as the international conventions and treaties that Lebanon signed and that have the same effect,

Therefore,

The Code of Military Courts is illegitimate, it should not be applied,  and the military court is consequently not entitled to hear my defense and all its decisions are illegal and unconstitutional.

Thus, in the name of the Constitution,  the Lebanese people, human rights and the values of justice, as well as in the name of the human conscience, I invite you once again to resign immediately in order to preserve justice and to uplift injustice.

Additionally, article 7 of the Code of Military Courts stipulates that the single military courts are assigned to civil judges from the judiciary system. However, they can be assigned to military officers (lieutenants and higher ranks) holders of a law degree, and if there are no officers with law degrees, then officers not holding such degrees can be assigned thereto.

Moreover, all the military court judges are appointed by the executive authority, what raises questions about their independence. Even more, military court judges are bound to the principle of military hierarchy and thus, there is no guarantee ensuring that they are independent judges and are qualified enough, due to the lack of studies and training and lack of specialization and competence. Hence, where are the rights of the citizens, where are the human rights and where are the international conventions and the Constitution and the laws, and most importantly, where is justice?

Military court hearings are ostensibly public. But, how can they be designated as public when people, media, human rights groups and lawyers are not allowed to attend them? What is the purpose then of such overtness if no one other than the defendants, their lawyers and the military are entitled to attend these hearings?

Defendants can have access to a lawyer as stipulated by the Code of Military Courts. However, the judge can prevent the lawyer from entering the military court for a whole month, “for disciplinary reasons” that are neither specific nor clear. The judge can also appoint a member of the military personnel under his command, to defend a suspect without reading the file of the person he is supposed to represent and without even talking to the defendant about the case. In such a case, the court assigns a military officer to assume the defense of the defendant without the prior consent of the latter. Similar ostensible military lawyers were appointed, in a way or another, for tens, nay for hundreds of powerless people who were trialed before the military court. Allow me to raise a question here: Do you know how many of those have been sentenced to death?

The thing that calls for anger and grief with the military court is the number of people who offered to intervene to my advantage in this case, while assuring me that their mediation will succeed! Hence, another question comes to mind, how do you accept to remain in duty when you are aware of the people’s opinion about your impartiality and your seriousness?

The rights of defense in the military court are widely restricted; especially that the General Military Prosecution is entitled to appeal against the military investigating judge’s decision to prevent the defendant’s trial, while the latter is not permitted to appeal against the accusation decision passed against him. Military courts pronounce their judgments by according to a printed list of questions about the facts of the crime, the aggravating circumstances, the tolerable excuses, and extenuating circumstances, to be answered by the judges of the Court very briefly and without any justification whatsoever.

As for the case that was filed against me, this is what I have to say:

* A military officer claims that I threatened him with a knife
* The military investigator concludes that there is no evidence that shows that I was carrying a knife
* After conducting inquiries and investigations, the military investigator concludes that the military officer is responsible since he intervened in a matter that does not concern him and since he admitted that he initiated the assault
*The military officer then admits that he did not see me carrying a knife, which contradicts his primary statements and the motive of his assault, as he declared it in the preliminary inquiry

Consequently, the facts are the following: there is no incriminating weapon, no eyewitness; a clear contradiction in the statements of the military officer, a complete absence of any evidence that confirms that I was carrying a knife, not to mention that the investigation of the military police held the officer fully responsible! Plus, there is no accusation list, no presumption of innocence and  no reason or argument for the trial except for the claims of your fellow officer! In spite of all this, I am being accused of charges that are punishable by up to three years in prison!

Finally, I am hereby declaring that I have not and will not escape. On the contrary, I wanted to inform you, by this letter, that I am staying at my place of residence in Dbayeh, at the address indicated in the file in your possession!

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Nour Merheb

On 5/27/2010, at 10 A.M.