So much has been written about the Special Tribunal for Lebanon that is seems the country has witnessed the court’s denouement several times over. Friday saw something of a rarity in the form of genuine judicial process, a hearing at The Hague in which points of law were rigorously debated.

The hearing was conducted in a transparent environment. It featured some of the world’s best judges, including several from Lebanon, and represented an important leap forward in the life of the tribunal.

Although no solution was reached over in-absentia trials for the four Hezbollah members accused of assassinating statesman Rafik Hariri, a lot can be learned from the process itself.

Most obviously, it showed that the tribunal exists. Churlish as that may sound, there are clearly factions in Beirut who believe that the court can be whittled away via bellicose rhetoric and accusations of bias. The STL is a real entity with a real statute and a real conviction to see justice served.

Many times political and media allegations were alluded to inside the Trial Chamber and many times they were diligently swatted aside. The message was clear: We are concerned purely with judicial matters.

Trying to drag the STL into the Lebanese political circus – as opponents have attempted repeatedly – may have the desired affect at home but will not derail an investigation the world at large is behind.

In addition, Friday offered a golden opportunity for President Michel Sleiman and the Prime Minister Najib Mikati to push through their public conviction to shore up Lebanon’s annual contribution toward court funding. The specter of international sanctions hangs over Beirut’s head if it reneges on its commitment to the STL; now is the opportune moment to prioritize the issue.

For opponents of the court, Friday offered a clarifying glance at its operations. What the world saw were judges and lawyers strenuously defending the rights of the accused to a fair trial. The robust performance from the defense office, calling for arrest warrants to be lifted for suspects, was the clearest demonstration so far of its commitment to justice.

If detractors still doubt the legitimacy of the court then they should wait and see. Watch with a critical eye and then judge the STL by its actions, not any preconception borne out of conspiracy theory or tribal loyalty. To accuse an organization of prejudging individuals while demonstrating prejudice toward that same organization is disingenuousness verging on the point of farce.

The court, it is clear, is continuing. It may take a long time to reach a conclusion, for the route to international justice is notoriously slow. But Friday’s events show the STL is on the right path toward proving its professionalism and independence.