Friends, ladies and gentlemen,

Although I almost feel an expert on Lebanese law, I shall not pretend to be such an expert and shall restrict myself to a field of the law of which I know a bit more and with which you have acquired important ties recently that is European law.

The case we came here for last Saturday suddenly ended well before it had begun. This case is and was a very simple one.

Invitation to EU Parliament
Dr Mugraby was invited to come to the European Parliament in Brussels and present his views of the Human Rights' situation in Lebanon and the region. On November 4 2003, Dr. Mugraby did so.

What offended the Military?
It then appeared that Lebanese Military were said to have been offended by certain things Dr. Mugraby said during his presentation. Which things exactly is not clear since all I have is a small and brief message signed by Judge Jean Fahd with hardly anything in it and in particular no specification of any alleged wrongdoing by Dr. Mugraby.

What did Dr. Mugraby say?
From the written form of Dr. Mugraby's presentation appears what he did say and that he criticized Lebanon for subjecting ordinary citizens to the jurisdiction of military courts. In the EU the very fact of subjecting a non-military to a military court violates the principles of fair trial. According to my information the way the subjection as so far practiced also runs contrary to various other human rights.

Freedom of speech?
In Europe it is unthinkable that somebody who criticizes subjecting ordinary citizens to military courts would be judged to have slandered the military. Punishing it as such would without any doubt be judged to violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech that over the years has been extended considerably by the European Court of Human Rights that has said on many occasions that freedom of expression is THE pillar of democracy.

A double violation
In this case we are faced with a double violation of the freedom of speech. Under the European Human Rights Treaty freedom of speech not only refers to supplying information but also to receiving information. And here, Dr. Mugraby supplied information and the EU Parliament received it. The fact that Dr. Mugraby had to stand trial for supplying information to the Parliament is liable to have some chilling effect and deter others from supplying information to the parliament. Therefore through this trial Lebanon was confronting the European Union.

Association Agreement
There is a special reason to pay special attention to European law. On April 1 Lebanon celebrated the full and final entry into force of the EU/Lebanon Association Agreement. (It had already been in force for quite a while, but without celebrations and now the EU Ambassador in Beirut and thee Lebanese Prime Minister, mr Siniora, delivered celebration speeches.)

Human Rights and democracy clause
And there was reason for celebrations, e.g. the inclusion in the agreement of a very potent human rights and democracy clause, following the example of the other association agreements with countries around the Mediterranean. That clause is expected to turn out to be an important tool if association partners fail to live up to their human rights commitments. That has not yet happened but the EU came close when the EU Presidency (Great Britain) and Commission undertook a human rights demarche on behalf of Dr. Mugraby by the end of December 2005. Then the Lebanese government was told that the trial was causing serious concerns in the EU that pointed at:

- the infringements of freedom of speech,
- the importance of defenders of human rights being able to operate freely,
- the inappropriateness of the case coming before a military court.

Fair trial
One of the most stringent requirements for a trial to be fair is that the court shall be impartial. An alleged slanderer should of course never be tried by those he is supposed to have slandered.("eigenrichting")

Action-Plan
Negotiations between the EU and Lebanon on an Action Plan are to start soon. There human rights and democracy will have the highest priority. As the EU recently replied to questions in Parliament. Further the Association Agreement is now in full force, and so is its severe human rights clause.

Soon it will be time to correct certain things that went wrong in the past, e.g. on the part of the Beirut Bar Association that waged a war of its own. Let us hope that they will follow the example set by the military court of cassation on April 15, 2006.

More information can be found at: http://www.advocatenvooradvocaten.nl/projects.html