:
According to information, the government commissioner to the military court, Judge Claude Ghanem, asked the military court of cassation to review the ruling issued against three members of Hezbollah, demanding that their punishment be increased.
Judicial sources reported that the cassation decision does not hinder the implementation of the ruling ordering the release of the three defendants after they paid a fine of 900,000 Lebanese pounds each.
This development comes in the midst of the legal debate accompanying the Military Court’s decision in this case, which sparked widespread controversy in judicial and political circles.
Minister of Justice Adel Nassar had referred Judge Abbas Juha, the civil judge in the military court, to judicial inspection because of his decision regarding the low financial bail in the case of releasing Hezbollah members.
The military court consists of five members: the president of the court, who is an officer, three army officers, in addition to a civilian judge, Abbas Juha. According to available information, the Minister of Justice has administrative authority over the civil judge in the court, but this authority does not extend to the military officers participating in it.
The details of the case go back to the Lebanese army arresting three people on March 3 at a checkpoint in the Barghaz area in the Marjayoun district, after they were found in possession of military weapons and ammunition, including rockets, shells, and hand grenades.
During the military court session, the defendants were interrogated again, where they confessed to belonging to Hezbollah, confirming that they were on their way “to fight against the enemy” when the army stopped them, and also indicated that they were not previously wanted and did not have a criminal record.
At the end of the trial, the court ruled to impose a fine of 900,000 Lebanese pounds on each of them on charges of possessing and transporting unlicensed military weapons and military ammunition, with the confiscation of the seized items.
This ruling raised questions in judicial and political circles, especially in light of the recent Cabinet decision that affirmed the ban on all military and security activities that fall outside the scope of state institutions, and the emphasis on restricting weapons to the Lebanese state.
Judicial sources also explained that the prosecution in the case was carried out on charges of possessing an unlicensed weapon under the Weapons Law only, without relying on the government’s decision that considered the party’s military activities illegal.
