![pi_fp_liban_illustration.jpg](/assets/f1440x800-q70/f70271c5/pi_fp_liban_illustration.jpg)
Lebanon
Capital city — Beirut
Incarceration rate (per 100,000 inhabit…
i10/2023Country population
Type of government
Human Development Index
0.744(92/188)
iHomicide rate (per 100,000 inhabitants)
iName of authority in charge of the pris…
Ministry of Internal AffairsA decree on 28 Au…
Total number of prisoners
i10/2023Prison density
194.4 %In August 2023, R…
i10/2023Total number of prison facilities
i2022An NPM has been established
yesSeveral proposals…
Female prisoners
i08/2022Incarcerated minors
i10/2022Percentage of untried prisoners
i08/2023Death penalty is abolished
noThe death penalty…
Safeguards
Admission and evaluation
All inmates are admitted to prison with a valid commitment order
Civil society organisations have reported cases of arbitrary detention. The Lebanese Centre for Human Rights (CLDH) published two reports on this issue, one in 2011 and the other in 2016. They stated that hundreds of people arrested for “security reasons” were allegedly subjected to procedural violations. In 2017, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention published an opinion on the case of Nizar Bou Nasr Eddine, a colonel in the Internal Security Forces (FSI), who was arrested and detained for alleged corruption. Mr Bou Nasr Eddine was arrested in April 2016 without a warrant and held in police custody, without legal justification and without access to a lawyer, for 40 days. In 2020, another opinion was published on the case of Hassan Al-Dika. The Working Group found that Mr Al-Dika was arrested and detained in 2018 without a fair trial. He was tortured and forced to sign a confession. Three UN independent experts sent a letter to the Lebanese government, expressing their “grave concern about the allegations of arbitrary detention and ill-treatment of Mr Al-Dika since his arrest”. There have been numerous arbitrary arrests of protestors ever since the mass protests that swept the country in 2019. Amnesty International denounced the arbitrary arrest and detention of Syrian refugees accused of terrorism. The NGO interviewed them in March 2021. It found that “they had not been informed of the reason for their arrest and were denied access to a lawyer or their family in the early stages of their detention.”1
Prisoners can inform their families about their imprisonment
From the moment they are taken into custody, prisoners have the right to communicate with a member of their family, their employer, a lawyer of their choice, or an acquaintance. Detention facilities have signs which list the rights set out in Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in three languages (Arabic, English, and French). This article is the basic text on the rights of arrested persons. The UN Committee against Torture stated that the FSIs read out the provisions of this article upon every arrest.1
UN Committee against Torture, ’Consideration of reports submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Initial reports of States Parties due in 2001“, 14 April 2016, § 62 pp. 15. ↩
Observers report that there are no formal criteria for cell assignment. The person’s legal status, type of offence committed, or any special needs are reportedly not considered. People are generally mixed.
Prisoners are reportedly assigned to cells based on their faith. A prisoner explains, “When I arrived, they looked at my papers and put me with the Shiites. That’s how it works. Christian? Go over there. Sunni, over there; Shiite, over there”. He also noted that prisoners must “buy their spot”: otherwise, they sleep on the floor outside of the cells.
Access to rights
Prisoners can be assisted by a lawyer throughout their incarceration
Prisoners have the right to communicate with the lawyer of their choice on being taken into custody.1 The right to be assisted by a lawyer during interrogations was introduced in 2020 by Law No. 191 of 30 January. However, according to civil society organisations, this law is not always respected. In an open letter addressed to Parliament on 9 February 2021, the CLDH condemned the law’s partial application. The legal assistance provided by the state is considered insufficient. Prisoners rarely seek legal advice because of its prohibitive cost and their distrust of the judicial system.2 The country’s current economic situation and the health crisis are jeopardising the provision of free legal aid services. Many of these programmes, mainly backed by international donors, are no longer running. Observers have reported that it is currently difficult to get a clear picture of how the rights of the defence are actually being implemented. In 2021, Amnesty International reported that Syrian prisoners (including minors) had been waiting between one to three months for a lawyer.3 In 2016, the Justice and Mercy Association (Association Justice et Miséricorde, AJEM) conducted a study of 395 prisoners. Half of them did not receive legal aid when they requested it. The majority did not ask for legal aid at all, because they believed it to be expensive. Foreign prisoners and pre-trial prisoners were most impacted. Of the 129 prisoners who did have a lawyer, most reported never having met their lawyer while in prison. 4 Civil society organisations provide legal support to prisoners. In 2009, the CLDH launched a legal aid programme. A dozen lawyers offered their services to incarcerated people in 23 prisons.5
Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ↩
The Lebanese Centre for Human Rights, “Activity report”, 2019, p. 5. ↩
Amnesty, “Lebanon: ‘I Wished I Would Die’- Syrian refugees arbitrarily detained on terrorism-related charges and tortured in Lebanon”, 23 March 2021, p. 36. ↩
Caritas Lebanon, European Research Institute, “Access to legal aid services in Lebanese prisons”, 4 March 2017, pp. 33-37. ↩
The Lebanese Centre for Human Rights, “Activity report”, 2019, p. 4. ↩
Prisoners have access to a legal aid centre
-
A lawyer may ask the authorities to meet with his client at any time. The day and time of the visits are determined by the prison service. Meetings are limited to 15 minutes, excluding persons in pre-trial detention.
The CLDH found that many lawyers are denied access to their clients. It reported that meetings between prisoners and lawyers often take place in the director’s office, given that there are no suitable meeting rooms. The rules of procedure state that these visits can take place “without the presence of a guard at the request of the defendant or the lawyer”. The confidentiality of these discussions is not always respected.1
Lebanese Centre for Human Rights, “Prisons in Lebanon: Humanitarian and Legal Concerns”, 2010, p. 26. ↩
Physical integrity
Number of deaths in custody
30
The reporters of the Together against the Death Penalty’s (Ensemble contre la peine de mort, ECPM) fact-finding mission reported over 30 deaths between 2018 and 2019. One prisoner died of an overdose and another committed suicide. According to the authorities, the majority of deaths were due to natural causes.
In June 2023, Amnesty International revealed a sharp rise in deaths among prisoners.The number of deaths nearly doubled from 18 to 34 between 2018 and 2022. The organisation attributes this rise to the economic crisis and inadequate medical treatment. Prison overcrowding in Lebanon, combined with poor prison conditions, contributes to the increase in deaths.1
Amnesty International, ““Instead of Rehabilitation, He Found Death” Lebanon: Deaths in Custody Doubled Amidst Four-Year Economic Crisis”, 2023. ↩
Number of deaths attributed to suicide
1
(+) (between 2018 and 2019)
The prison service must notify a judicial authority for
all deaths
The prison service has the obligation to inform the prosecutor of deaths in custody. The UN Minnesota Protocol mandates that prison directors notify the judicial authorities of any deaths that may be ascribed to illegal actions. However, this requirement is not consistently followed.
In its 2018 periodic report on Lebanon, the UN Human Rights Committee regretted the lack of information and investigation into 81 deaths in detention between 2012 and 2016. The authorities claimed that these people died of natural causes.[^naturelle]
There are allegations of torture, violence, and ill-treatment. In 2014, the UN Committee against Torture found reports of corporal punishment by prison staff. It also noted “very harsh detention conditions in disciplinary cells”. Prisoners denounced the use of torture during interrogations and arrests. The Committee considered that “torture is and has been systematically practised in Lebanon, particularly in the context of investigations and to obtain confessions”. Allegations of torture reported to the examining magistrate were not investigated. Prisoners claimed that they did not have access to a lawyer during their interrogation. The presence of a lawyer would discourage the commission of acts of torture. Very few prisoners are aware that they can request medical examinations. At Baabda Women’s Prison, medical examinations revealed clear signs of torture, including sexual violence and electric shocks to the feet. In the same report, the Committee noted a “widespread and manifest practice of torture and ill-treatment of suspects in detention, including persons arrested for crimes against State security and other serious offences, as well as foreigners, particularly Syrians and Palestinians, and individuals apprehended in police operations, notably low-income persons arrested for petty crime”.1 In 2020, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the UN Human Rights Committee found that Hassan Al-Dika was tortured while in the custody of the FSI General Directorate and then again during his two weeks in Roumieh Prison. No investigation into these acts of torture was launched following their report. Mr Al-Dika was refused surgery. He died a month later. In its 2019 report, the CLDH stated that torture is still a “common practice” in detention. It is reportedly carried out by members of the FSI.2 Human Rights Watch reported cases of arbitrary detention and torture committed against 35 persons, including two minors, in 2021. In March 2021, Amnesty International denounced the use of torture against 26 Syrian prisoners, including four minors, who were suspected of terrorism.
In 2023, 14 members of the Internal Security Forces were subject to an internal disciplinary action for “beating and blackmailing” people in custody, as reported by the Ministry of the Interior.
UN Committee against Torture, “Annual session report, 51st and 52nd sessions”, 2013-2014, pp. 287-289. ↩
Lebanese Centre for Human Rights, “Prisons in Lebanon: Humanitarian and Legal Concerns”, 2010, p. 5. ↩
The prohibition of torture is enshrined in the Constitution and the legislation
only in the legislation
Prohibition of torture, both physical and psychological, is enshrined in the Act of 26 October 2017. It specifies that the use of torture cannot be justified by “necessity or national security criteria”. Statements obtained under torture are inadmissible. The law provides for a special procedure to investigate allegations of torture and special protection for witnesses. Civil society organisations consider that the law is incomplete: the prohibition does not include cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; the characterisation of torture is limited to different phases of the prosecution (preliminary and judicial investigations, trial or execution of sentences); the statute of limitations is between three and ten years and starts when the victim is released from custody. In 2021, Amnesty International regretted that this law is not being implemented.
The United Nations Convention against Torture (UNCAT) was
ratified in 2000
The Lebanese state failed to submit its initial report to the UN Committee against Torture within the established deadline (one year after ratification). Its first report was submitted in 2016.
All allegations and suspicions of ill-treatment inflicted on prisoners are logged
In 2016, the UN Committee against Torture noted that medical personnel are trained in the Istanbul Protocol.1 In 2015, forensic doctors were trained at the Institute of Judicial Studies to effectively investigate and document cases of torture.2 A memorandum of understanding was signed between the Ministry of Justice and the NGO RESTART to restructure the forensic service in light of this protocol.3
UN Committee against Torture, “Consideration of reports submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Initial reports of States Parties due in 2001”, 14 April 2016, § 74 p. 17. ↩
Ibid § 292 p. 55. ↩
Ibid § 326-327 pp. 64-65. ↩
Number of recorded violent acts between prisoners
-
In 2014, the UN Committee against Torture noted problems with self-governance and inter-prisoner violence in certain prisons.1
UN Committee against Torture, “Annual session report, 51st and 52nd sessions”, 2013-2014, § 23 p. 288. ↩
Prisoners file complaints against the prison service.
On 29 April 2022, Lebanon’s National Committee for the Prevention of Torture (NHRC-CPT) visited the Military Police Prison in Rihanieh. It noted the presence of a box where prisoners could submit complaints against officers, as well as a template questionnaire that prisoners could fill in.[^NHRCc] [^NHRCc]: National Human Right Commission including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (NHRC-CPT) / Lebanon’s National CPT – Report to the UNSPT, 2022, p. 19
National Preventive Mechanisms and other external control bodies
The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) was
ratified in 2008
An NPM has been established
yes
Several proposals for the establishment of an NPM have been made since the ratification of the Protocol. The Ministry of Justice set up a committee to consider the creation of an NPM by Decree No. 2036 in June 2009. The committee was composed of representatives from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Parliament, the Lebanese Bar Association, national NGOs, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The participants discussed two main options: the first was to create a new organisation to fulfil the NPM mandate; the second was to assign the NPM role to the National Human Rights Commission, an institution which was still being set up. The latter option was proposed to Parliament in 2012 without success. It was finally adopted four years later by Law No. 62 of 27 October 2016.1
Together against the Death Penalty, Carole Berrih and Karim El Mufti, “Living Without Being: Fact-Finding Mission, Lebanon”, 2020, p. 115. ↩
Name of the NPM
National Human Rights Commission
The NPM is a standing committee within the National Human Rights Commission.
The NPM has come into office
yes, in 2019
The NPM does not appear to be operational. In 2019, five people were appointed as members of the NPM. They found themselves with no funding and no official recognition of their functions.1 One of the members never participated in the NPM’s activities. Another member suspended their membership; this left the NPM with only three active members.2
Together against the Death Penalty, Carole Berrih and Karim El Mufti, “Living Without Being: Fact-Finding Mission, Lebanon”, 2020, p. 115. ↩
National Human Right Commission including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (NHRC-CPT) / Lebanon’s National CPT – Report to the UNSPT, 2022, p. 19 ↩
The NPM was appointed by
the Executive Power
The NPM reports are made public
-
On 4 May 2022, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC-CPT) published a report with its findings from visits to five civilian and military prisons between 2020 and 2022.1
National Human Right Commission including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (NHRC-CPT) / Lebanon’s National CPT – Report to the UNSPT, 2022 ↩
The Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture (SPT) has visited the country
yes
From 4 to 10 May 2022, a Delegation of the UN Subcommitee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) visited places of deprivation of liberty. The main objective of the visit was to assess the country’s implementation of the recommendations it had made following an initial visit in 2010.
Its report was made public
The report of the visit was submitted to Lebanon on 3 September 2010. It remains confidential.
Prisons are visited by other monitoring mechanisms and authorised persons.
- The Prisons Department of the Ministry of Justice carries out unannounced and periodic visits to examine the conditions of detention. Based on these visits, detailed reports and recommendations are submitted to the Director General of the Ministry of Justice before being forwarded to the relevant authorities.1
- The General Directorate of Public Security established an Inspection Commission to visit places of detention to verify the implementation of the Convention against Torture and prepare reports thereon in the event that violations are discovered.2
- Lawyers are allowed to visit prisons. In December 2019, the Beirut Bar Association sent roughly 500 lawyers to visit every prison in Lebanon, on the initiative of the President of the Bar. Their aim was to identify prisoners without lawyers and assess the conditions of detention.
- Delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have been allowed to visit prisons since 2002. The visits have been ongoing since a protocol was signed between the ICRC and the Lebanese authorities in 2007.3 The ICRC reports its findings to the FSI Directorate General and assists in the restoration and renovation of facilities.4 The ICRC is the only body authorised to visit Ministry of Defence prisons. The findings of these visits are confidential.5
The examining magistrate, the correctional magistrate, the public prosecutor of the Court of Appeal, or the financial public prosecutor are required, in principle, to visit detention facilities every month (Article 15 of the Internal Prison Regulations and Article 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Presidents of criminal courts must visit police custody facilities and prisons every three months. The General Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal, the judge appointed by the Minister of Justice, and the General Prosecutors of the lower courts have the right to inspect prisons, check the legality of arrests and releases, consult prisoner records, and send feedback to the Minister of Internal Affairs. Civil society organisations have reported that these regulations are not followed or used.6
UN Committee against Torture, “Consideration of reports submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Initial reports of States Parties due in 2001”, 14 April 2016, § 319 pp. 61. ↩
Ibid § 428 p. 83. ↩
Together against the Death Penalty, Carole Berrih and Karim El Mufti, “Living Without Being: Fact-Finding Mission, Lebanon”, 2020, p. 91. ↩
Ibid § 319 p. 61. ↩
Lebanese Centre for Human Rights, Prisons in Lebanon: Humanitarian and Legal Concerns“, 2010, p. 44. ↩
Lebanese Centre for Human Rights, “Lebanon’s Prisons: Humanitarian and Legal Concerns”, p.32. ↩
Sentence adjustments policies
The law provides for a sentence adjustment system
The Execution of Sentences Act governs the conditions for the early or conditional release of convicted persons (Act No. 463/2002, amended by Act No. 183/2011). According to legislation, the requirements for early release are:
- to have served at least half of the sentence
- to have shown good behaviour
- to not pose a danger to society
- to prove prospects are available to them outside of prison.1
Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, “Executive Summary: Note by the Secretariat”, 2016, p. 5. ↩
Decisions on granting sentence adjustments are made by the judicial commissions of each governorate (the eight administrative divisions of the country).1 The law states that each commission is composed of “a judge, appointed by the Minister of Justice, after approval of the Superior Council of Magistracy; the governor of the central prison; the governor of the prison where the person in question is detained; two doctors, one of whom must be the prison doctor; a psychiatrist appointed by the Minister of Justice; and, a social worker appointed by the Minister of Justice” (Article 2, Law n°463/2002). The commission is obliged to prepare a detailed and substantiated proposal in the first half of June and the first half of December of each year, consolidating all requests for sentence adjustment. The commission is required to consider the prisoners’ behaviour and their psychological, medical, and social condition (article 3, law n°463/2002)2.
UN Committee against Torture, “Consideration of reports submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Initial reports of States Parties due in 2001”, 14 April 2016, § 428 pp. 81. ↩
Lebanese Centre for Human Rights, “Prisons in Lebanon: Humanitarian and Legal Concerns”, 2010, pp. 89-90. ↩
Sentence adjustments can be granted during the incarceration
Specific categories of prisoners are ineligible for sentence adjustment
Prisoners who have committed the following offences are not eligible for sentence adjustment (Article 15, Law 463/2002):
- crimes posing a public threat (terrorism, arson, counterfeit currency, human trafficking, drug trafficking)
- participation in armed gangs and crime syndicates
- rape of minors
- crimes against state security and public funds
- recidivism1
Prisoners sentenced to death or to life imprisonment may be eligible for a reduced sentence under two conditions: pay compensation to the victim’s family, or be granted a stay of proceedings (Law No. 463 of 2002). This clause does not apply to those convicted between 1994 and 2001. In practice, there is never a stay of proceedings and prisoners cannot afford to pay the compensation.
Lebanese Centre for Human Rights, “Prisons in Lebanon: Humanitarian and Legal Concerns”, 2010, p. 91. ↩
The law provides for a sentence adjustment for medical reasons
People who are ill can apply for early release on medical grounds.1 The Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that persons with a “life-threatening illness” may serve their sentence in the prison’s hospital.2 Civil society organisations have reported that these measures are hardly ever used.
Conference of the States Parties to the UN Convention against Corruption, “Executive Summary: Note by the Secretariat”, 2016, p. 5. ↩
UN Committee against Torture, “Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Initial Reports of States Parties Due in 2001”, 14 April 2016, § 419-421 p. 79. ↩
Number of prisoners who have been granted a presidential pardon or amnesty during the year
-
No recent figures have been published.
A pardon or suspension of sentence may be granted to “convicted persons suffering from blindness, hemiplegia, or incurable diseases, as well as the very old or those suffering from a disability that renders them unfit for any work. A pardon or suspension of sentence may also be granted to persons with many children who are minors and have no provider” (Article 49 of Decree No. 14310). These cases must be documented and reported by the prison governor.[^grâce] Persons sentenced to death may request a presidential pardon (Articles 391 and 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The request may be submitted directly to the President of the Republic or via the Ministry of Justice in the form of a petition signed by the convicted person, their lawyer, or a family member. A pardon may also be granted to persons sentenced to other types of punishment (Article 396 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Applications are reviewed by a three-member commission of the Supreme Judicial Council.
Convictions are often accompanied by a fine. Failure to pay can result in additional days in detention. The number of prisoners affected and the number of fines are not reported by the government.