This report has been produced with assistance of the European Union. The content of this report is the sole responsibility of its authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

SUMMARY

Scope of the Study

Context of the Study

 

In light of the intensifying multifaceted crisis that Lebanon has been enduring, particularly affecting its public sector since 2019, the criminal justice system represents one of the most critical sectors that must be prioritized in any reform efforts. This urgency arises from the serious restrictions on individuals’ personal liberty, which is guaranteed and protected by the Lebanese Constitution. While detention facilities in Lebanon are struggling with a high rate of overcrowding, the percentage of pre-trial detainees in prisons and in the courts’ detention facilities managed by the Internal Security Forces (ISF) reached 65% of the total number of detainees by mid-2024. This situation necessitates a thorough examination of the challenges faced by the criminal justice system to mitigate pre-trial detention and its duration. The term “pre-trial detention” refers to the period from the moment of deprivation of liberty until the release of the detainees or the conclusion of their trial. This is the period during which individuals are detained during which they benefit from the presumption of innocence.

Objectives of the Study

This study aims to understand the judicial practices and trends associated with the use of pre-trial detention during criminal proceedings. It involves an in-depth examination of the judicial procedures followed in a sample of judgments issued by criminal courts, as well as an exploration of the challenges related to the management of detainee case files between the judiciary and the ISF, and their impact on the duration of pre-trial detention. Therefore, the study seeks to gain a better understanding of the judiciary’s ability to adhere to legal deadlines regarding pre-trial detention and to identify the key factors contributing to the prolongation of such detention, based on the principles of a fair trial, particularly the presumption of innocence and the exceptional nature of pre-trial detention.

Methodology of the Study

This study primarily relies on the analysis of a sample of judicial documents pertaining to 58 judgments issued by criminal courts in three Lebanese governorates (Beirut, Mount Lebanon, and South Lebanon) since the beginning of 2023. This sample represents 2.7% of the judgments issued by these courts during the same period. It also draws on qualitative interviews with eight individuals involved in pre-trial detention issues (the Head of the Prisons Directorate at the Ministry of Justice, four lawyers, two former detainees, and a judicial assistant). These interviews aim to provide context for the information derived from the sample.

Description of the Study Sample

• These judgments included 113 defendants who were held in pre-trial detention during the criminal proceedings against them, the majority of whom were detained after 2020, i.e. after the onset of the crisis. The defendants were divided into 105 individuals charged with felonies and eight defendants charged with misdemeanors.
• The majority of the detainees in the sample were adult males at the time of their pre-trial detention, while three were female and four were minors.
• 56% of the detainees were of Lebanese nationality, followed by 24% of Syrian nationality. It is worth noting that these percentages are proportional to the overall distribution of detainees in prisons and in the courts’ detention facilities at the end of 2023, where detainees of Lebanese nationality comprised 60%, and detainees of Syrian nationality represented approximately 29%.
• 37% of the defendants were accused of committing property-related crimes (theft), 34.5% were charged with drug-related crimes (drug trafficking and/or distribution of narcotics), 10.6% were accused of crimes against human life and safety (murder), and 10% were charged with crimes related to breach of public trust (uttering forged currency and counterfeiting). The remaining defendants were accused of crimes related to kidnapping, rape, and human trafficking.

Conclusions

     I.    Judicial Procedures Related to Pre-trial Detention: Key Trends in Felony Cases

From the analysis of the sample of judgments, the following preliminary observations regarding the judicial trends related to pre-trial detention in felony cases can be made.

 

Duration of Pre-trial Detention

 

1- The judicial authorities frequently resorted to pre-trial detention throughout all the stages of judicial proceedings in felony cases, rather than employing it as an exceptional measure. This is evidenced by the following:

• 6% of the accused individuals were detained before the conclusion of the trial before the Criminal Court. In contrast, 6.7% were detained at the conclusion of the trial based on Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), which mandates that released accused persons must surrender to the court before the trial begins, while 5.7% of the released accused were convicted in absentia. It is important to note that the high number of detainees at the time of judgment in the sample may reflect the courts’ prioritization of cases involving detainees.
• 65% of the accused remained in detention from the pre-charge detention order issued by the Public Prosecution during the preliminary investigation until the Criminal Court issued its judgment.
• Only 16% of the accused were released; of these, 30% were released during the investigation stage before the indictment decision was made, while 70% were released during the trial stage after the indictment. Notably, 41% of those released appeared before the Criminal Courts during subsequent hearings.
• The sample did not indicate any instances of the judicial authorities utilizing alternatives to detention, such as placing defendants under judicial supervision.

 

 

2- The average duration of pre-trial detention reached 21.5 months, with the longest durations recorded for Palestinians accused of murder. The average overall pre-trial detention duration in felony cases was 21.5 months ranging from 2.5 months to seven years. The longest durations were recorded for Palestinians accused of murder. When comparing the detention durations with the crimes attributed to the accused, the highest average duration was recorded in cases related to murder (38 months), followed by drug trafficking (23 months), then theft (19 months) and finally kidnapping (13.5 months) or counterfeiting (13 months). If we look at the detention durations based on the nationality of the accused, we find that the average duration increases slightly for non-Lebanese defendants. While the average reached 20.5 months for Lebanese defendants, it reached around 23 months for non-Lebanese defendants, distributed as follows: 32 months for Palestinians, 19.2 months for Syrians, and 20 months for stateless persons (undocumented).

 

 

3- The duration of the trial proceedings for the detained suspects was double the duration of the investigation proceedings against them. The average detention duration of suspects during the investigation stage (i.e. from the initial detention to the issuance of the indictment decision) reached seven months, while it reached 15 months during the trial stage (i.e. from the issuance of the indictment decision to the issuance of the judgment). It was found that the most prominent reasons for the delay in the trials were the courts’ failure to proceed with the trial hearings day after day as stipulated in Article 249 of the CCP, in addition to the failure to transport the detainees from the place of detention to the court, the incompleteness of the court panel, the strikes and the general closure during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021).

 

4- The transfer of detainees’ files from the investigation stage to the trial stage was significantly delayed. This interim period is where no judicial authority has formally taken up the case to determine the necessity of continued detention. The average duration for transferring detainee files from the Accusation Chambers to the criminal courts through the public prosecutor’s offices reached 2.5 months. The lowest average was recorded in Beirut courts at four days, followed by Saida courts at 16 days. In contrast, Baabda courts registered the highest average, exceeding five months. The specific reasons for this delay, whether related to the working mechanisms of the Accusation Chambers or the public prosecutor’s offices, could not be established. During this transitional stage, the Accusation Chamber no longer has authority over the case, while the criminal court has not yet taken it up. This fact hinders the detainee’s aptitude to submit release requests and the judicial authorities’ ability to rule on them, thus affecting the length of the pre-trial detention.

 

5- There is a noteworthy difference in the duration of pre-trial detention across the three governorates. The longest detention periods were recorded in Baabda courts during the investigation stage and in Saida courts during the trial stage. The lowest average total detention duration was observed in Beirut courts, reaching 14 months (3.5 months in the investigation stage and 9.5 months in the trial stage). This was followed by Baabda courts, where the average exceeded 24 months (11 months in the investigation stage and 16 months in the trial stage). The highest average was recorded in Saida courts, reaching 33 months (5 months in the investigation stage and 31 months in the trial stage). It should be noted that not all defendants were detained in both stages.

 

 

This fact reveals the existence of greater challenges in handling the cases of detainees in the Baabda and Saida courts compared to the Beirut courts: in Saida, it was found that the sole Criminal Court chamber in this jurisdiction suffered from a vacancy in its panel, leading to a disruption in its work in 2023. This was addressed in 2024, which is clearly evident from the fact that the number of judgments issued by the court in the first five months of 2024 (76 judgments) exceeded the total number issued in the entire year of 2023 (32 judgments).

 

Baabda dedicates the largest share of judicial resources for processing the cases of detainees, compared to other jurisdictions. Three chambers of the Courts of Appeal carry out the tasks of the Accusation Chamber and three other chambers handle the duties of the Criminal Courts, compared to Beirut, where a single chamber is assigned to the Accusation Chamber and two chambers to the Criminal Courts, while a single chamber in Saida is dedicated for each task. Nevertheless, the jurisdiction of the Baabda district covers the entire Mount Lebanon Governorate, the region with the highest population density in Lebanon, and accordingly, a greater number of cases are expected to be referred to its courts compared to other jurisdictions. Yet, the sample indicates that the judicial resources allocated to criminal cases may be insufficient to ensure prompt trials and to limit the prolonged duration of pre-trial detention.

 

6- The absence of legal representation for the defendants has contributed to prolonged duration of their pre-trial detention. The judgments indicated that 61% of the accused were represented by a lawyer, while 33% were not, and 5.7% were tried in absentia without legal representation. The sample revealed that the overall average duration of pre-trial detention was 19.8 months for those represented by a lawyer, compared to 23.6 months for those without legal representation. The impact of legal representation on the accused is most evident in the pre-trial stage, with the average detention period increasing from 6.6 months to 7.5 months during the investigation stage, and from 2.2 months to 3.7 months during the administrative referral of the case from the Accusatory Chamber to the Criminal Court. The increase was less pronounced, from 14.9 months to 15.2 months, during the trial stage. There was consensus among the participants in the interviews that one of the reasons for the prolonged duration of pre-trial detention is related to whether defendants had legal representation, as it falls on the lawyer, in addition to filing requests for release, to accelerate the administrative procedures of the case, such as the service of documents, requesting the transfer of detainees from detention centers to courts, and ensuring the transfer of the file from one judicial authority to another.

 

 

7- As a result of the trials, the criminal courts sentenced 63% of the detainees to an imprisonment sentence longer than the duration of their pre-trial detention, while 9.5% were sentenced to a term shorter than their detention period, 7.6% were sentenced to a term equal to the duration of their detention, and 17% of the detainees were not convicted (acquittal or suspension of prosecution).

 

Non-Compliance With Legal Deadlines

 

The judicial authorities were unable to adhere to the legal deadlines stipulated in the CCP in the majority of the cases included in the sample. These deadlines generally aim to limit the duration of pre-trial detention and ensure the detainee’s right to a speedy trial or release. Among the most significant deadlines that were not adhered to in the sample are the following:

8- Maximum duration of pre-trial detention in felony cases. According to Article 108, the maximum duration of pre-trial detention in felony cases is six months, which can be extended once for a similar period by a reasoned decision, with the exception of “murder, drug, and crimes against state security offenses, as well as crimes of widespread danger and terrorist crimes”, and the case of a detainee previously sentenced to a felony penalty. In the sample, the judicial authorities exceeded the one-year period in 63% of the cases involving crimes not excluded under this article. The available information in the sample hindered verifying the condition of the absence of a previous felony sentence to benefit from this maximum period.

 

9- Maximum detention period based on the decision of the Public Prosecutor’s Department. The law stipulates that the investigating judge must issue the warrant for arrest within five days of the pre-charge detention order issued against the suspects by the Public Prosecutor’s Department (Articles 32, 42, 47, 106, and 107). In the sample, the warrants for arrest were issued within the legal deadline for only four detainees in two cases. The average period between the two detention orders was 32 days, which is approximately four weeks more than the maximum period stipulated by the law. The lowest average was recorded before the Saida courts, where it reached 13 days, and the highest average was before the Baabda courts, where it reached 50 days, while it reached 24 days before the Beirut courts. This period is a fundamental guarantee for the detainees, as it guarantees their prompt first appearance before a judge, pursuant to the requirements of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and a guarantee to prevent torture and ill-treatment.

 

The main reasons for the judicial authorities’ failure to comply with this deadline are the failure to transfer the detainee to the courts’ detention facilities immediately after the expiration of the maximum pre-charge detention period during the preliminary investigations (four days) due to overcrowding in these facilities. At the end of 2023, the eight courts’ detention facilities in Lebanon held 347 people, more than 16% of whom were convicted. Therefore, overcrowding in these cases leads to prolonged periods of pre-charge detention, which in turn leads to further overcrowding.

 

10- Obligation to hold trial hearings on consecutive days. Article 249 of the CCP stipulates that trial hearings before criminal courts must be held on consecutive days, except in exceptional cases where a hearing may be postponed to a nearby date. However, none of the criminal courts in the cases included in the sample adhered to this rule. Instead, the trials were conducted in the same manner as those in other courts, with hearings being postponed to dates ranging from two days to five months.

 

11- Deadline for the issuance of the judgment. The law stipulates that the Criminal Court must issue its judgment on the same day as the conclusion of the trial or within a maximum period of 10 days (Article 272). What further adds to the importance of this deadline is that the court must, upon the conclusion of the trial, arrest the accused who are not detained at the time, by executing the warrant for arrest against them if they attend the final trial hearing (Article 242). In the sample, only two judgments were issued within the 10-day deadline. The average duration between the conclusion of the trial and the issuance of the judgment reached 44 days, with the lowest average being in the Beirut courts at 35 days, followed by the Baabda courts at 38 days and the Saida courts at 48 days. The main reasons for the courts’ non-compliance with this deadline are the lack of any consequences imposed by the Court of Cassation for violating it, and the consideration of this deadline as merely a matter of prompting rather than a ground for the annulment of the judgment.

 

Weak Implementation of Article 108 of the CCP

 

12. The judicial authorities do not consistently apply Article 108 of the CCP, as detainees are not automatically released after the expiration of the maximum detention period, even in cases where all the conditions outlined in this article are met.

 

13. The courts do not explicitly renew the pre-trial detention period through a reasoned decision upon the expiration of the detention term in felony cases. The prevailing practice is to extend the detention period implicitly when a request for release is rejected, should the detainee submit such a request. Furthermore, the template used for rejecting these requests lacks sufficient reasoning, particularly concerning the fulfillment of the conditions set forth in Article 108. In addition to violating the maximum period of pre-trial detention, these practices violate the requirement to periodically review the lawfulness and necessity of detention through a reasoned decision. Moreover, they impose an additional condition for renewing detention or releasing the detainee, namely the submission of a written request by the detainee. This condition is neither stipulated by law nor necessary, as the detainee’s presumed intent to regain personal freedom is inherent in the exceptional nature of pre-trial detention.

 

14. In the event that it is decided to release detainees who meet the conditions of Article 108, some judicial authorities tend to impose conditions for their release, such as financial guarantees, based on an interpretation of Article 108 that does not guarantee release by right. However, the Court of Cassation and other judges tend to adopt a different interpretation that guarantees the detainee’s right to an unconditional release upon meeting the conditions set forth in Article 108, based on the principle that pre-trial detention is the exception.

 II.  Challenges in Managing Pre-trial Detention Cases Between the Judiciary and ISF

 

15. Continuation of temporary management of Detention facilities by the ISF instead of the Ministry of Justice. While the law stipulates the transfer of the management of detention facilities from the Ministry of Interior – ISF to the Ministry of Justice, the ISF continue to manage pre-trial detention facilities to this day. Accordingly, the entity responsible for implementing judicial decisions related to the pre-trial detention and release of individuals is not administratively affiliated with the Ministry of Justice, which manages the judicial service, but rather with the Ministry of Interior. This situation creates challenges related to communication and coordination between the judicial authorities and the ISF, in order to properly manage the case files of individuals in pre-trial detention.

 

16. Lack of an automated relationship in the management of pre-trial detainee case files:
    • The judicial authorities do not possess an automated system for managing the case files of litigants, particularly those who are detained. There is no automated system that includes the judicial procedures for detainees. Judges and judicial assistants rely on manual methods to process detainees’ files.
    • The ISF are responsible for keeping records of inmates, including both detainees and convicts. Automation has been implemented for managing these records under the supervision of the Prisons Directorate at the Ministry of Justice. Nevertheless, this database is not comprehensive, as it is limited to detainees held in the courts’ detention facilities and prisons against whom arrest warrants have been issued and does not include detainees held in other detention facilities (such as police stations and detachments). Furthermore, the database is not linked to the judicial authorities handling detainee cases, meaning that judges and judicial assistants in court offices cannot access the information stored in the system. This issue constitutes a significant obstacle to the effective management of detainee case files, as it withholds crucial information from judges and judicial assistants, particularly the detention facility. This in turn delays judicial processing of detainees’ cases, such as requests for their transfer to the court to appear before the judiciary.
    • There is no automated connection between the court offices and the detention facilities managed by the ISF. These entities primarily rely on paper-based communication through mail or fax. This leads to communication difficulties between them, which may contribute to prolonged pre-trial detention, particularly in cases where correspondence is lost, delayed or when the judicial authorities are unaware that a detainee is being held under multiple lawsuits.
    • Furthermore, there is no electronic notification system indicating that the detainee has exceeded the maximum legal detention period stipulated in Article 108 of the CCP, which may contribute to the judiciary’s inability to identify detainees who should be released.

 

17. Detainees face difficulties in exercising their defense rights. They encounter challenges in communicating with the judiciary during their detention, particularly when they are not legally represented by a lawyer. These challenges, coupled with the harsh conditions of detention, weaken their ability to exercise their defense rights, leading to delays in the investigation and trial procedures, and to prolonged pre-trial detention periods. These challenges are particularly evident in the following cases:
    • Appearance of detainees before judicial bodies. The issue of transporting detainees from the detention facilities to the courts to appear before the judicial bodies handling their cases, is one of the main challenges faced by detainees in exercising their defense rights. This issue contributes to the delay in the investigation and trial procedures in their cases. This challenge has significantly worsened since the crisis, with the percentage of transport requests successfully carried out by the ISF decreasing from 77% in 2019 to 45% in 2020 and 2021, reaching 64% in 2023, according to the Prisons Directorate at the Ministry of Justice. The primary reasons for the failure to carry out these transport requests are the shortage of vehicles and personnel allocated for detainee transport within the ISF, the increased number of detainees held in various ISF units that struggle to provide their transport to courts, as well as the reliance on paper-based communication between the judiciary and the ISF without standardized transport request forms.
    • Participation of detainees in judicial proceedings. Detainees who lack legal representation face additional challenges in participating in judicial procedures, particularly with regard to understanding their rights and the judicial processing of their cases, which undermines their ability to exercise their defense rights. Detainees are not informed of their rights throughout the duration of their detention, whether in writing or orally, except at the commencement of the preliminary investigation, in accordance with Article 47 of the CCP. Furthermore, there is no standardized form adopted by the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of Interior that provides legal information directed to detainees. While the ISF report that they inform detainees of judicial decisions issued against them and received from judicial authorities, this notification does not include the necessary legal information to enable them to exercise their defense rights. This includes, for example, the right to appeal judicial decisions related to pre-trial detention and the legal deadlines to exercise such rights.

 

18. Overcrowding determines pre-trial detention facilities and the normalization of detention practices in security units for the benefit of the Public Prosecution. Pre-trial detainees are supposed to be held in places of preliminary investigation within the units of the ISF (e.g., police stations) during the pre-charge detention stage, under the authority of the Public Prosecution. They are then to be transferred to the courts’ detention facilities to appear before the judiciary and subsequently moved to prisons following the issuance of a warrant for arrest against them. However, overcrowding in detention facilities has forced the ISF to adopt practices that often violate the law, the most notable being the continued detention of detainees in unit detention facilities “for the benefit of the Public Prosecution” beyond the maximum four-day limit for pre-charge detention. By mid-2024, the number of detainees held in security units for the benefit of the Public Prosecution had reached approximately 1,500 detainees. Furthermore, the ISF have been unable to implement the clause added to Article 47 of the CCP in 2020, which mandates the transfer of detainees from the unit where they were initially interrogated to another unit. This clause effectively institutionalizes this illegal practice. Accordingly, the capacity of detention facilities has become the determining factor for the location of pre-trial detention, impacting detainees’ ability to appear promptly before judicial authorities, as well as their right to be separated from convicted inmates, as mandated by law.

 

19. Overcrowding leads to further overcrowding. Overcrowding in detention facilities is a key factor exacerbating the challenges faced by both the judiciary and the ISF in managing detainee case files. Just as the slow pace of judicial procedures – resulting from the challenges faced by the courts – leads to prolonged pre-trial detention and an increase in overcrowding, the latter itself also plays a role in delaying judicial proceedings due to the resulting difficulties in transferring detainees to the courts. Accordingly, the situation becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, where overcrowding leads to further overcrowding, due to the weak capacity of the criminal justice system to process detainees’ cases with the necessary speed.

 

20. Temporary solutions involving risks to defense rights. During the general lockdown imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, judicial authorities adopted temporary and effective measures to reduce overcrowding in detention facilities, such as holding remote court hearings or conducting hearings in the courtroom at Roumieh Prison. However, these measures carried certain risks to the detainees’ defense rights, particularly due to the limitation on their ability to physically appear before judicial authorities in the absence of a legal framework regulating these procedures, which weakened the judicial guarantees to prevent torture or ill-treatment.

 

21. Weak judicial oversight of detention facilities. The law mandates that the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal, the Public Financial Prosecutor, the Investigating Judge, the Single Criminal Judge and the presidents of the Criminal Courts regularly inspect detention facilities and prisons and order the necessary measures for investigations and trials. However, the judicial oversight of detention facilities remains weak and ineffective. Oversight is primarily limited to inspections carried out by the judge overseeing the Prisons Directorate, who drafts reports for the relevant authorities based on field visits and monitors the legality of detention based on the database. However, neither the Ministry of Justice nor the Supreme Judicial Council has issued any directives regarding the methodology or mechanisms for conducting this judicial oversight.

 

Recommendations

Based on these conclusions, the study presents the following recommendations for actors of the criminal justice system:

First: Recommendations to the Ministry of Justice and judicial authorities in order to improve the management of pre-trial detainees’ case files.

 

1- Adopt automation in managing the files of pre-trial detainees before the judiciary, by developing an electronic case management program that includes a list of all detainees, the judicial procedures of their cases and a notice of the expiry of the maximum detention periods, linked to the ISF database.

 

2- Request the Judicial Inspection to initiate a review of the factors preventing judicial departments from adhering to the provisions of the CCP regarding pre-trial detention and to propose practical solutions to resolve these challenges. This review shall include:

• The daily shift procedures adopted in the Public Prosecution Offices, Investigating Judges, Accusation Chambers and criminal courts to ensure the prompt processing of pre-trial detainees’ case files.
• Compliance with the legal deadlines set forth in the law, particularly the maximum detention periods for pre-charge detention (Articles 32, 42 and 47), total pre-trial detention (Article 108), the prompt appearance of detainees before the investigating judge (Article 107), the obligation to hold consecutive trial hearings before criminal courts (Article 249) and the deadline for the criminal court to issue a judgment (Article 272).
• The full and effective implementation of Article 108, particularly regarding the extension of pre-trial detention period through a reasoned written decision and the automatic release by right of detainees upon the expiration of the maximum pre-trial detention period.

 

3- Issue a circular addressed to judicial assistants, emphasizing the need to ensure the proper processing of detainees’ cases without relying on inquiries by lawyers, detainees and their families, in order to avoid unjustified delays in pre-trial detention.

Second: Joint recommendations for the Ministry of Justice and the ISF.

 

3- Develop a joint mechanism for implementing judicial supervision measures under Article 111 of the CCP, which allows pre-trial detention to be substituted by placing the defendant under judicial supervision.

 

4- Develop a joint mechanism to activate the role of the ISF in reporting cases of pre-trial detention that exceed the maximum legal deadlines.

 

5- Take measures that enable detainees to exercise their defense rights, particularly through:

• Enabling detainees to be informed of their legal rights by providing a legal guide for them and adopting forms to notify them of judicial decisions, including information on the rights to challenge judicial decisions, relevant deadlines and procedures for exercising said rights.
• Facilitating detainees’ communication with judicial clerks to inquire about their case files, thereby ensuring their effective participation in the judicial procedures taken in their cases.
• Establishing legal support centers in primary detention facilities and enhancing the role of both Bar Associations in providing free individual and group legal consultations at detention facilities.

 

6- Take measures to implement the plan to transfer prison management from the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Justice, and establish a specialized body for prison management and inmate rehabilitation.

 

Third: Recommendations to Parliament.

 

7- Review the legal framework related to pre-trial detention with the aim of:

• Reviewing the pre-trial detention system by comparing it with the experiences of other countries, and exploring the possibility of making all pre-trial detention decisions of limited duration, requiring judicial authorities to renew the detention period through a reasoned written decision, while granting authority to the ISF and other security and military agencies to release detainees automatically in the event that the detention period is not renewed.
• Amending Article 114 of the CCP to remove the requirement of detainees to submit petitions for their release.
• Amending Article 108 of the CCP to facilitate its application, particularly by explicitly requiring the automatic release of detainees upon the expiration of the maximum pre-trial detention period.
• Introducing accountability mechanisms in cases where judicial authorities exceed the legal deadlines related to pre-trial detention, including, for example: nullifying judicial procedures that are not conducted within the legal deadlines, explicitly authorizing the automatic release of detainees upon the expiration of the detention period, regulating the detainee’s right to petition to the Court of Urgent Matters for release if the deadlines are exceeded and prosecuting for the crime of deprivation of personal liberty.

Regulating the procedures for holding remote court hearings while ensuring the defense rights, particularly before the investigating judge.

To read the full study in PDF format

This report is an edited translation from Arabic

Researchers: Ghida Frangieh (Lawyer and Head of Litigation Department of the Legal Agenda) and Ali Swaidan (Lawyer in the Litigation Department of the Legal Agenda).

Contributors: Aya Farhat (Lawyer), Laure Ayoub (Journalist), Reine Ibrahim (Research Assistant) from the team of the Legal Agenda.

Legal Review: Nizar Saghieh (Lawyer and Executive Director of the Legal Agenda).

English Editing: Nour Kamel Ibrahim.