Lebanese citizens complain about the security authorities arresting their children, accusing them of terrorism, and subjecting them to torture during the period of detention, due to their participation in protests against the deteriorating living conditions.

Among these is Mrs. Fatima Khalaf from Bab al-Tabbaneh in northern Lebanon, whose 16-year-old minor son, Alaa, was arrested and charged by the military court with terrorism charges. He was released after being imprisoned for weeks.

Mrs. Fatima said, "I felt very indignant about the terrorism charges that were directed against my son," noting that he now appears "psychologically broken, and he was subjected to beatings and moral violence during his interrogation."

And confirm her words, lawyers who spoke to Al-Jazeera Net about the same facts, which happened to some of those who participated in the protests.

Hybrid charges

On February 22, the Military Prosecutor charged 35 people who participated in the Tripoli protests, on charges of terrorism, forming criminal gangs, and stealing public property, while accusing them of using force against members of the security forces and setting fire to Tripoli's municipality building.

For the first time, the prosecution pushed some lawyers against demonstrators on charges of "terrorism" to file a report with the Public Prosecution Office of Discrimination in Beirut - among whom was lawyer Muhammad Sablouh - and centered on "enforced disappearance and evidence of torture against demonstrators and the failure to apply Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which gives the detainee." Rights, such as appointing a lawyer to attend investigations. "

Sablouh draws to Al-Jazeera Net that had it not been for the human rights pressure, some of the detainees would not have been released, and he sees their accusation of terrorism as a hybrid that only perpetuates repression.

Al-Jazeera Net interviewed a group of jurists and judicial experts about the different stances towards the military court, and the problem of the independence of the Lebanese judiciary from political interference.

The Lebanese prosecution considers that the allegation of terrorism is caused by a number of people gathering to "commit the same crime" (Reuters)

Suspicious gatherings

Here, the former Public Prosecutor of Cassation, Judge Hatem Madi, confirms that the one who claims the military court is the government delegate to it and not the court, because it is judging according to the legal text.

He explains that "whenever a number of people gather to commit the same offense, they are charged with terrorism, given that their gathering raises suspicion about their work, and the Public Prosecution's allegation is merely suspicious, and it is likely that the final verdict will not be on the charge of terrorism, if its elements are not completed."

However, Madi considers that there is a difficulty in reconciling justice and the military judiciary, because the latter is administered by officers and not by judges, and he indicates that a judge is spending a 3-year training period, and he licenses rights, while these conditions are not required of officers, and while a civilian judge justifies his rulings for conviction or Innocence, the military judge does not justify it.

Defects in the work

And here, Ashraf Rifi, the former Minister of Justice and the former Director General of the Internal Security Forces, Ashraf Rifi, adds 3 other flaws in the work of the Military Court.

First, the unexplained provisions are written on a standard form of papers that are filled out on the basis of "fill in the blank".

As for the second, it does not observe the constitutional principle stipulating that citizens must be tried equally before the same civil courts.

Finally, do not allow those affected by any pending case before it to be represented personally or by a lawyer to defend him.

The powers of the Military Court expanded from 1958, according to Rifi, and it is supposed to specialize in terrorism crimes, dealing with Israel and espionage for its benefit, and the crimes of weapons and explosives, and the prosecution of crimes against the military and foreign armies such as UNIFIL operating in the south of the country.

The case of Minister Samaha

Rifi recalls the decision of the Military Court of Cassation in 2016, which ordered the release of former minister Michel Samaha, who was convicted of cases related to terrorism and the transfer of explosives from Syria to carry out assassinations in Lebanon.

He says that had it not been for the political pressure, the court would not have retracted its decision and tried Samaha again with a prison sentence. Therefore, he considers that the military court was hired for other than its functions, and that its political influence overwhelmed its legal form.

The repercussions of the Syrian war

In a related context, lawyer and human rights defender Diala Shehadeh finds that the allegation against a group of demonstrators of terrorism is devoted to the political dimension, and considers that her investigations record violations such as excessive violence and procrastination with medical examination.

Diala has worked on more than 200 files at the Military Court, and says that in the last 10 years, the accusation of "terrorism" has spread in Lebanon in parallel with the outbreak of the Syrian war, and has afflicted Lebanese and displaced Syrians, as a result of their communication, support, or affiliation with groups and organizations opposed to the Syrian regime.

Diala concludes that there is a "lightness" in dozens of terrorist files, some of which were empty of a credible argument, such as their reliance on a conversation on social media.

Positive military courts

For his part, a member of the Political Council of the Free Patriotic Movement, lawyer Wadih Akl, talks about the "advantages" of the military courts, considering that their effectiveness lies in the speed of their trials.

Akl considers that Lebanon, in its exceptional condition, cannot proceed to abolish the exceptional military court, and stated that its support is based on two reasons: the first is the risks to the borders and the always possible war with Israel, and the second is the situation of sleeper cells and terrorist groups that threaten the country.

He said that the military court covers the loopholes of the criminal judiciary, noting that the concept of military courts exists in most countries of the world, and that Lebanon is not present for a step to cancel or amend its role.

For his part, Ashraf Rifi returns to a bill he prepared while he was Minister of Justice (2015), calling for the abolition of the military court and transferring terrorism cases to courts specialized in terrorism, considering that the project does not see the light because the political circumstance is opposite.

As for Diala Shehadeh, she does not support the abolition of the military court, and stresses the need to restore her powers to their original place, while modifying the rules of her trials for civilians, and for them to preserve the rights that are sponsored by regular courts, such as defending themselves and appointing lawyers.

The politicization of the judiciary

This discrepancy leads to the problem of the independence of the Lebanese judiciary, and lawyer Diala believes that the mere appointment of the head of the Military Court by the Ministry of Defense in the government makes the position politicized, because the Minister of Defense has the right to stop the hand of the President of the Court from performing his duties, and he who renews his mandate annually, while reminding the Major General Rifi projects many projects about the independence of the judiciary, such as the election of the Judicial Council from the judges themselves.

In parallel, Judge Hatem Madi considers that the reason for the politicization of the judiciary is "the recklessness of the political class and its lack of respect for the sanctity of the judiciary, in exchange for the weakness of some judges and their acceptance of political hegemony either out of fear or in the greed for a position that the politician secures for them."

According to Madi, the entry point for political violations is judicial formations, as the powers of the authority interfere with appointments of "key and sensitive" centers, and gradually start from public prosecution centers, to investigative judges and accusatory bodies, to criminal and discrimination courts, and individual penal judges.

Thus, the judge appointed by the formations becomes like a debtor to his supporters, and if he does not fulfill the authority, the future formations will not include him, which affects the morale of honest judges, according to Madi.

He believes that the only solution is to achieve the independence of the judiciary, and for it to become an authority organized by the constitution, such as the legislative and executive powers, instead of remaining a "branch of the procedural power."