[ad_1]
A month after the explosion, we are still in the generalities … a legal reading of the motives and responsibilities of the investigation.
A month after the bomb attack in the port of Beirut, “investigations, arrests and summons of presidents and ministers are in the way of satisfying public opinion.” Thus, human rights sources commented on the course of the investigation, surprising the arrest of State Security and General Security agents.
The sources explained through the agency “Akhbar Al-Youm” that the responsibility for labor breaches is in accordance with the provisions imposed by legal texts, and in fact there is no text that speaks of the authority of public security agents or State security in the pavilions, warehouses and containers located in the port of Beirut, and therefore there are no responsibilities for them.
In this context also, the source criticized the detention of Major Joseph Al-Naddaf, who prepared a report on the port pavilions and handed the information over to the State Security Command, who did what was required to inform the former commissioner of government before the military court, Judge Peter Germanus, and the answer was that the file is not one of his faculties. He went to the Attorney General of Cassation, Judge Ghassan Oweidat, who listened to the port employees, released them and closed the file.
At the same time, State security does not have the right to “act from the head”, and it is out of place to speak of a delay in the inspection of the pavilions for a period of four months, since according to the law, there is no responsibility no damage, so the explosion did not occur during that period. Rather, the damage is the result of actions taken at a later date that were not sufficient to prevent it.
Here, the sources considered that the issue should begin with the Judicial Power itself, which did not take the appropriate measures, denying the mandate of the State Security Agency to put guard in pavilion No. 12, but the agency was assigned by a prosecutor to discriminate by addressing the port administration and asking it to stand guard.
In this context, the sources stressed that the forensic investigation should not stop at the security, negligence and negligence services, but in fact the public opinion has the right to know who requested ammonium nitrate or why and how the ship arrived in Beirut and stayed at the port, and why the emergency judge in Beirut. In 2014, Judge Gad Al-Maalouf made the decision to transfer them from the Roussos ship to the port, and why did he appoint the Ministry of Works as the judicial guard of the goods when this guard should be the temporary administrative body of the port or of the customs ?
In the same context, why did the Director General of Customs, Badri Daher, submit a request to sell them knowing that they are dangerous, and Article 205 of the Customs Law establishes that the Director General of Customs has the right to dispose of any material dangerous alone in the harbor?
The sources stopped at the series of reservations about the ship, which were issued successively, was the objective to burden it with debts to pay for its sale, or specifically the sale of its cargo to pay the duties? Knowing that the first debt was only 11 thousand dollars, and therefore, why did the owner of the ship and the owner of the cargo not ask for anything?
The sources also called for the investigation to clarify who took the initiative to fill the gap in the hangar by placing a container next to it, and to determine the cause of the ignition and the lightning that caused this first explosion, and within 30 minutes the second explosion occurred. .
[ad_2]
