evidence by the competent local authorities. As an act involving the security of the State, the case was referred to the Judicial Council in implementation of the relevant national legislation and on 21 February Judge Michel Abu Araj, Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, was appointed as the investigating Judge, replacing Judge Mezhar.
33. Failure to carry out the most fundamental tasks associated with this responsibility became evident from the very outset when the following was revealed:
(a) The body of a person recovered on 15 February 2005 was deemed to have survived for approximately 12 hours after the blast;
(b) A body was located by accident and recovered on 22 February 2005;
(c) A body was located by family members and recovered on 1 March 2005;
(d) One person has been reported missing and 15 believed to be still at the scene of the explosion.
Preservation of evidence
34. Preservation of evidence, while vital to the success of any investigation, is secondary to the preservation of life and to the recovery of bodies. In this case as in any major emergency, the preservation of the scene was not the primary focus of those emergency service personnel who arrived to render assistance. However, after the initial chaos and the removal of the dead and injured, the security services under the direction and control of the investigating Judge, Mr. Mezhar, should have cleared the area of people and prevented any other unauthorized access to the site. After a detailed search of the area had been completed to ensure that all the dead and injured had been recovered, the site should have been sufficiently secured to preserve all available evidence. The authorities in charge failed to do this.
35. The Mission also identified the following shortcomings:
(a) On 14 February 2005, shortly before midnight, the six vehicles forming Mr. Hariri’s convoy and one BMW (not connected with the convoy) were removed from the scene of the explosion and taken to the Helou Police Barracks in the city of Beirut. Although the vehicles were covered after they had been removed, they were now absent from their respective resting places at the site of the explosion, thereby preventing any ballistic analysis, explosive analysis and evidence-gathering at the scene;
(b) Lebanese military, police and intelligence personnel, including explosives experts, interfered with and removed items of possible evidential value without properly documenting, reporting or collating their activities;
(c) Apart from the initial media access to the site in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, the media were given official access to the site on 15 February by Judge Mezhar after the scene had been secured by the security services;
(d) The seat of the explosion (the resulting crater) was flooded with water in the days following the explosion after the local authorities/Police had failed to prevent water from being turned on and released into the crater through the fractured pipes at the scene, thereby damaging or even eliminating vital evidence;
