Consolidated Advisory Opinion on Three Proposals to Amend Media Law No. 69 of 2026

Pursuant to Article 15 paragraph b item 3 of Law No. 62 of 27 October 2016 as amended

Referral of the first proposal: letter No. 3041/م.ص | Joint review of the three proposals | 15 November 2026

I Referral the Commission’s competence and scope of the expanded review

1. This advisory opinion was prepared at the request of the Secretariat-General of the Council of Ministers, through letter No. 3041/م.ص, referring to the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, the proposed law submitted by Member of Parliament Dr Inaya Ezzeddine to amend certain provisions of Law No. 69 of 27 August 2026 (the Media Law), to promote gender justice, equal opportunities and protection of children’s rights in the media. The Secretariat requested examination and an opinion before presentation to the Council of Ministers for an appropriate decision. The referral relied on the transmission by the Presidency of Parliament No. 6668/ص of 4 November 2026 and its attachments.^[1]
2. Review of the proposal falls within the Commission’s mandate to issue opinions on legislation and its compatibility with national and international human rights standards, under Article 15, paragraph (b), item 3, of Law No. 62 of 27 October 2016, as amended. This mandate is exercised here in response to that referral, with independence of assessment and conclusions.^[2]
3. Examination of the referred proposal is supplemented by review of two additional parliamentary proposals addressing criminal liability and investigation under the Media Law, given their shared subject matter and interrelated effects. Letter No. 3041/م.ص is not represented as referring those additional proposals: the referral concerns Dr Inaya Ezzeddine’s proposal, while the broader comparison falls within the Commission’s legislative-review mandate.
4. “Human Rights Commission” refers to the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, and “Media Commission” to the National Media Commission established by the Media Law. Each retains its own legal personality and mandate.

II Identification of the three proposals and their respective scope

1 First proposal on gender justice and children’s rights

5. Dr Inaya Ezzeddine’s proposal, dated 2 November 2026, seeks to amend certain provisions of Media Law No. 69 of 27 August 2026 to promote gender justice, equal opportunities and protection of children’s rights in the media. Its eleven articles address Articles 3, 43, 52, 62, 68, 74, 83, 89, 91 and 98, followed by entry into force. This review uses the text published on the Commission’s website and the Secretariat’s referral described above.^[3]

2 Second proposal amending Article 104

6. The proposal by MPs Georges Okais, Melhem Riachi and Ghada Ayoub was registered on 11 September 2026 and referred to the Government on 16 September 2026, according to the accompanying legislative record. Its operative provisions are limited to rewriting Article 104 by removing the offence of false news and the reference to hard labour, while retaining incitement and an aggravating circumstance linked to serious consequences, followed by entry into force upon publication.^[4]

3 Third proposal amending Articles 104 105 and 114

7. The proposal by MPs Osama Saad, Bilal Abdallah, Melhem Khalaf, Ibrahim Mneimneh, Najat Aoun, Halime El Kaakour, Mark Daou, Firas Hamdan, Yassin Yassin and Michel Douaihy was registered on 1 October 2026 and referred to the Government on 7 October 2026, according to the legislative record. In addition to addressing Article 104, it amends Article 105 on the non-application of certain criminal provisions and Article 114 on investigations being conducted exclusively by public prosecutors.^[5]

III Methodology and institutional references

8. The review tests the clarity of obligations and sanctions, legitimacy of their purposes, necessity, proportionality, enforceability, and safeguards for independence, participation and judicial review. Protection of women and children is assessed alongside freedom of expression and journalism, equality, privacy and access to information, distinguishing what the text proposes from the Commission’s recommended additions.
9. The Commission draws on its Board Decisions Nos. 46, 47 and 48/2026 of 30 October 2026 concerning the election and nomination mechanism, Preparatory Committee, public call and assessment tools. These are procedural decisions implementing existing law, not amendments to it or grounds for creating additional membership requirements.^[6]
10. On child protection, participation and privacy, it draws on its opinion of 25 August 2026 on the two proposals concerning minors’ use of social media and its study of 12 May 2026 on protecting children in the digital environment. Their provisions are not automatically transferred to the media; their principles inform assessment of the proposed measures’ risks and effects.^[7]
11. The proposals are examined in turn according to their subject matter, followed by review of their combined effects on criminalization, sanctions, jurisdiction, procedure, representation and complaints. Rana Saghieh’s article “The Media Law before Parliament Again: Additional Amendments to Safeguard Media Freedom”, published in The Legal Agenda — Parliamentary Observatory on 15 October 2026, is used as supporting human rights analysis, while the original texts remain the reference for determining the proposals’ content.^[8]

IV Shared constitutional and international framework

12. The proposal must be read in light of the Constitution’s Preamble, Article 7 on equality, Article 13 on freedom of opinion and the press, and Articles 8 and 20 on guarantees of liberty and justice. Protection of rights requires foreseeable definitions of violations, competent authorities, sanctions and avenues of appeal, avoiding open-ended regulatory delegation on matters affecting the substance of freedoms.^[9]
13. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly Articles 2, 3, 14, 17, 19 and 26, provides a basis for balancing freedom of expression, privacy, equality and remedies. Paragraphs 22, 25, 34, 39, 40 and 43 of General Comment No. 34 assist in assessing the precision and proportionality of restrictions, regulatory independence and the particular characteristics of the internet.^[10]
14. Substantive equality rests on Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Special measures to remedy underrepresentation are interpreted in light of General Recommendation No. 25, with measurable objectives and impact assessment, without treating a 30% quota as a ceiling on women’s participation.^[11]
15. The Commission also draws on the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women’s General Recommendation No. 40 (2024) on the equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems. It adopts 50:50 parity between women and men and links equal representation to equal access to decision-making positions and effective participation in exercising power and influence. Drawing on this interpretive approach, the Commission considers that any statutory 30% quota should be framed as a minimum within a clear path towards parity, with nomination, selection and assessment safeguards preventing participation from being reduced to mere numerical presence, particularly in regulatory and administrative bodies in the media sector. This recommendation is invoked as interpretive guidance on treaty obligations; it does not itself replace adoption of the national provisions needed to specify representation levels and implementation mechanisms.^[12]
16. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly Articles 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 39 and 40, requires protection, participation and access to information to be considered together. General Comment No. 25 on the digital environment and UNICEF’s professional principles for reporting and interviews provide interpretive and advisory guidance, rather than provisions independently creating penalties.^[13]
17. Regarding freedom to publish, Articles 15 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the high threshold for incitement in the Rabat Plan of Action are also relevant. Opinion, information, error, distortion and incitement must be distinguished, as must civil and punitive sanctions; protection must not be used to introduce undefined criminalization.^[14]
18. The Commission also draws on the Human Rights Committee’s 2018 concluding observations on Lebanon, particularly paragraphs 45 and 46 on freedom of expression, the inappropriateness of imprisonment for defamation and the need to delimit cybercrime. These recommendations guide implementation of international obligations; they do not themselves mean that any national provision has ceased to apply without completion of the necessary legal procedures.^[15]

V Opinion on the first proposal concerning gender justice equal opportunities and children’s rights

1 General principles non-discrimination and workplace protection under Article 1

19. The Commission supports adding a prohibition of discrimination and equal opportunities. It recommends defining direct, indirect, multiple and intersectional discrimination and including nationality, social, economic and health status and age in a non-exhaustive list, while stating that justified measures to achieve substantive equality and reasonable accommodation do not constitute prohibited discrimination.
20. Critical reporting on discrimination or reporting an incident involving it must be distinguished from practising discrimination. The prohibition must not be understood to prevent discussion, criticism or artistic treatment of beliefs, social relations or stereotypes, or to equate mere offence or disagreement with a specific rights violation.
21. The Commission recommends defining stereotyping, commodification and exploitation through applicable facts and criteria taking account of context, coercion, discrimination and effects on rights. These terms must not be used to impose a behavioural model on women, exercise guardianship over their appearance or choices, or restrict criticism, satire and artistic expression. Different levels of seriousness should be addressed through graduated measures, rather than a uniform sanction for every inappropriate expression.
22. In the workplace, the Commission recommends requiring institutions to adopt written policies preventing harassment, violence and discrimination, safe reporting and impartial investigation procedures, a prohibition of retaliation, and protection for women workers, trainees, freelancers and contractors. These duties complement the Law Criminalizing Sexual Harassment and Rehabilitating Its Victims; they neither remove judicial remedies nor require prior internal settlement.^[16]
23. In election coverage, equality should translate into published criteria for access to programmes and appearances as experts and decision-makers, and qualitative and airtime indicators, coordinated with electoral legislation and competent oversight. Justice must not be reduced to counting appearances, nor balance become interference in editorial opinion.

2 Programmes of special importance and the 30% requirement under Articles 2 and 3

24. The Commission supports promoting educational content and the rights of women, children and marginalized groups. It recommends using “persons with disabilities”, identifying other groups’ additional accessibility needs, and requiring captioning, sign language and audio description according to the service’s nature and phased implementation.
25. The proposed aggregate percentage requires identification of the services concerned, calculation periods, treatment of repeats, advertising, simulcasts and interruptions, and prevention of double-counting programmes falling into more than one category. It must be distributed so that the entire quota cannot be fulfilled through one category while neglecting children, women or less visible groups.
26. The Commission recommends that the law specify the minimum and calculation principles, while the Media Commission, following public consultation, establishes details, qualitative standards, suitable broadcast times and accessibility. Differences among public, private, community and specialized services should be addressed through objective rules, not discretionary individual exemptions or prior review of editorial scripts.
27. The percentage must be supplemented by an impact study, compliance timetable, transparent support for independent production and indicators of quality, diversity and actual access. Any phasing or objective exception needs an explicit legal basis preserving the statutory minimum; regulations cannot suspend the percentage in the name of flexibility.

3 Freedom of electronic media and scope of liability under Article 4

28. The Commission expressly supports the absence of licensing or prior approval requirements for establishing media websites and platforms. It recommends retaining the statement “electronic media are free” in existing Article 62. The phrase “subject to legislation in force” must not become a means to reintroduce licensing or a restriction contrary to that express guarantee.^[17]
29. Media platforms and websites should be defined, distinguishing services exercising editorial decision-making from technical intermediaries and non-professional individual expression. Obligations should reflect function and actual capacity; blogs and individual accounts must not automatically face media-institution requirements on training, employment or programme percentages.
30. The Commission recommends limiting liability to conduct attributable to the person under its legal elements, avoiding presumed intermediary liability for all third-party content or general monitoring duties. Any removal, disabling or urgent measure must be specific, reasoned and reviewable, favouring the measure least restrictive of the service and lawful information.

4 Advertising and proportionality of sanctions under Article 5

31. Article 5 adds withdrawal of advertisements and possible suspension of advertising broadcasts for repeat violations to the fine. The Commission recommends specifying the violations justifying each measure, distinguishing unlawful advertisements from technical defects or transparency failures, and linking liability to the roles of the institution, advertiser and entity controlling publication.^[18]
32. “For a period of not less than one week” sets a minimum without a maximum and permits financial effects that may exceed what is necessary or threaten the outlet’s continued operation. The Commission recommends replacing it with a clear maximum duration and graduated measures reflecting seriousness, repetition, harm and economic capacity, and initially limiting withdrawal to the offending advertisement.
33. The authorities competent to impose fines, withdrawal and suspension must be identified, with notice, an opportunity to be heard, reasons, appeal and applications to stay enforcement. Urgent measures should have a short duration and prompt review. Merely adding a general suspension power is insufficient without specifying its relationship to the law’s existing measures and review procedures.
34. The Commission recommends an explicit prohibition of discriminatory or exploitative advertisements or those exposing children to a specific risk, and clarification of repeat violations, the relevant interval and prior decision. Punitive sanctions for the same act must not be combined contrary to applicable safeguards, while compensation and measures to stop harm remain within their legal scope.

5 Women’s representation and election and nomination mechanisms under Article 6

35. The Commission supports reserving at least 30% of seats for women. It recommends specifying the required number and rounding method if the body’s size changes, ensuring representation across areas of expertise and decision-making roles, and preventing the quota from excluding additional women or substituting sex for independence and competence.
36. Implementation is linked to Article 74’s two routes: election of seven members and appointment of three. Paragraph (a), item 7, provides for the direct election of an expert in public freedoms and human rights by members of the Human Rights Commission, and nomination of two candidates. Nomination is not appointment, and the holders of these three positions must not be conflated.^[19]
37. Decisions Nos. 46, 47 and 48/2026 concern this specific mandate. They inform safeguards on consultation, public notice, equal opportunities, documentation of expertise and conflicts of interest, reasons and a right of response. Their wording does not bind the legislature or authorize the Preparatory Committee or Commission Board to alter the statutory allocation of seats.^[20]
38. The Commission recommends coupling the minimum with a duty to encourage women experts to apply, publication of representation rules before each route opens, and coordination among electing and appointing bodies through aggregate results. Legislation should complete the process for forming the government list and selecting its members so that the minimum is met, without invalidating a lawful election solely because of underrepresentation in other routes.
39. The human rights seat cannot be reserved exclusively for women by an administrative decision lacking a statutory basis or made solely responsible for correcting representation. If the legislature distributes the quota among electing bodies or candidate lists, it must expressly specify this and rules for situations where compliance is impossible, preserving eligibility, transparent comparison and appeal rights.
40. The cited decisions distinguish eligibility verification from comparative merit assessment: scores do not cure failure to meet a statutory condition, and ranking creates no automatic right to membership. The Commission recommends preserving this distinction in applying the quota and documenting selection reasons without disclosing unnecessary personal data.^[21]
41. Application of the quota to the first composition, renewals and replacements for vacancies must be specified. If the amendment takes effect during ongoing candidacy procedures, an express transitional provision is needed. Submission of a proposed law does not itself alter existing procedures or permit retroactive exclusion of candidates. Necessary procedural changes must be announced with a fair and equal period for compliance.^[22]

6 Disqualification termination of membership and independence under Article 7

42. The Commission supports including final convictions for harassment, violence and exploitation among grounds for termination, while replacing “offences relating to” with specific references to offences or their legal elements, so that general descriptions such as threats do not become disproportionate grounds for ending independent membership.
43. The Commission recommends aligning termination grounds with candidacy and appointment disqualifications in Article 73, particularly item 8, and removing unjustified differences between disqualifying circumstances before entry and those arising during membership. The effects of quashing a conviction or legal rehabilitation should follow existing provisions; no administrative settlement may override a statutory disqualification.^[23]
44. A complaint, prosecution or accusation alone is insufficient to terminate membership. The final-conviction requirement, where specified in the proposal, and members’ defence rights and safeguards for verification, decision and review must be preserved. Members’ independence from the body electing or nominating them must also be maintained; that body gains no right to recall or direct them because of disagreement with their positions.^[24]

7 Training and professional standards under Article 8

45. The Commission supports regular training and professional protocols and recommends including children’s rights, disability, privacy and crisis reporting, with mandatory institutional plans, resources and defined responsibilities. Implementation should be measured through improved practice and complaint handling, not training-session counts alone.
46. The Media Commission should prepare standards in consultation with journalists, unions, specialized bodies, and women and children through safe, suitable methods. Standards must be published and their binding scope specified. Training must not become a licensing condition for practising journalism, a means to impose official opinion or a barrier to lawful criticism.

8 Complaints confidentiality and remedies under Article 9

47. The Commission supports an accessible, safe mechanism and recommends expressly recognizing children’s right to complain themselves or with assistance from a person of their choice, without requiring consent from a guardian whose position may conflict with their interests. Complaints should be free and available through accessible in-person, digital and telephone channels, with specific procedures for persons with disabilities.
48. Time limits must cover receipt, examination, response to risk, determination and notification, with safe referral to support, courts and competent bodies. A criminal conviction must not be required to receive a complaint or take protective action within statutory powers, and settlement must not become a precondition for remedies in violence or harassment cases.
49. The Commission recommends collecting only necessary information, defining access, retention and destruction powers, and publishing anonymized decisions or summaries. Disclosure duties must not be interpreted as authorization to expose women complainants, children or witnesses, while enabling effective defence and providing the respondent with necessary facts without unnecessary identification.
50. It should be clear that a complaint to the Media Commission does not prevent recourse to the courts or the Human Rights Commission within its mandate and does not suspend appeal time limits without an express provision. Coordination should protect confidentiality and prevent conflicting proceedings and repeated questioning, without replacing the public prosecution service or juvenile judge with the Media Commission.^[25]

9 Identity protection participation and the public interest under Article 10

51. The Commission supports protecting the identities of victims of violence and harassment and of children. It recommends covering indirect identification through voice, school, location, relatives’ names and metadata and preventing identity-revealing republication on institutional accounts and promotional materials. Blurring images is insufficient if the child or victim remains identifiable.^[26]
52. For adults, the Commission recommends confidentiality as the default, with a narrowly defined exception for disclosure freely and knowingly requested by the adult with express consent, without pressure, exploitation or exposure of others. Prior disclosure does not make their identity available for every use, and their right to tell their story and seek justice must be protected.
53. For children, not every media appearance is presumed harmful, and protection must not prevent participation in public affairs. A documented assessment should consider best interests, capacity to understand and foreseeable risks, respecting the child’s wish to refuse or stop. Exploitative or harmful guardian consent must not be accepted. Harmful or leading interviews or those re-enacting trauma must be excluded, with heightened protection in justice and sexual violence cases.^[27]
54. New provisions should be coordinated with the other paragraphs of Article 98: a general reference to the “public interest” must not override special confidentiality for children or victims. Reporting matters of public importance must be separated from identification, preserving legitimate investigative journalism and safe documentation through less identifying means, without turning privacy protection into a prohibition on exposing violations.
55. The Commission recommends a rapid mechanism to correct disclosure, remove it and stop its spread within the institution’s actual control, retaining a secure copy where necessary as judicial evidence under applicable procedures. An order to remove a specific copy must not erase documentation necessary for accountability, and evidence retention does not justify continued public availability.

10 Entry into force resources and follow-up under Article 11

56. The Commission recommends that protection, confidentiality and non-discrimination safeguards take effect upon publication, with express deadlines for regulations, training and programme percentages and a transitional provision for the quota. Fundamental rights must not await completion of regulations, and sanctions must not apply retroactively or to obligations not yet effective and ascertainable.
57. Implementation should include a funded plan and resources for the Media Commission, and a published annual report with indicators on representation in decision-making and media appearances, children’s programme quality and accessibility, complaints and their duration and outcomes, recurrence of harm and effective remedies. Periodic legislative review should involve civil society and the Human Rights Commission without compromising regulatory independence.

11 Conclusions on the first proposal

58. The Commission welcomes the effort made and the approach combining protection of women and children with participation and accountability. It recommends proceeding with adoption after the specified amendments, particularly concerning definitions of violations, programme percentages, sanctions, women’s quota, complaints and identity protection. Implementation should be linked to the publishing-freedom and investigation provisions in the following two proposals, preventing protective duties from becoming an alternative means of criminalization.

VI Opinion on the second proposal amending Article 104

1 Subject matter and human rights value of the amendment

59. The second proposal repeals the paragraph criminalizing false news, retains the six-element incitement offence in paragraph (a), and reintroduces serious consequences as an aggravating circumstance in paragraph (b) through “the penalty shall be increased”, while deleting the reference to hard labour. This opinion is based on that wording in Article 1 on page 3 of the original version, rather than relying solely on its descriptive metadata.^[28]
60. The Commission supports removing the existing general criminalization of false news, given the imprecision of fabrication, falsehood and harm and the risk of using it to re-criminalize defamation after it has been made subject to civil liability. Professional accuracy, correction, reply and proportionate compensation remain accountability mechanisms; journalistic error or disputing a report’s accuracy does not in itself justify deprivation of liberty.^[29]
61. It also supports deleting hard labour from Article 104, while distinguishing this from liability for a separate attack on life or physical integrity whose elements are established. Protecting media work does not exempt perpetrators of criminal incitement meeting its conditions, or accomplices in a separate attack, from lawful liability; equally, participation in an attack cannot be inferred merely from publication or opinion.

2 Incitement safeguards and limits of increased penalties

62. A high threshold for criminalizing incitement must be maintained through assessment of context, the speaker’s status, intent, content and form, extent of dissemination and likelihood of harm, including imminence. These are factors for assessing seriousness, not a formal checklist recited without reasons. The prosecution must prove intent and criminal elements, and the court explain the link between the speech and the risk of a prohibited act against the targeted persons or group. Provocation, doctrinal disagreement or political criticism is insufficient.^[30]
63. The Commission recommends clarifying “incitement to sectarian conflict” and linking it to specific criminal conduct and a serious risk, so that discussion of sectarianism or criticism of power structures is not equated with provoking prohibited conflict. The relationship between the article’s heading on hatred and discrimination and its specified acts must also be clarified; a heading or general principle alone cannot create an offence.
64. Replacing hard labour solely with “the penalty shall be increased” is insufficient to define the sanction. The Commission recommends specifying the type and minimum and maximum of the increased penalty, the consequences justifying it, the meaning of serious disruption and destruction, causation and the conditions of attribution concerning the mental element. A subsequent death or injury cannot be attributed to a publisher merely because it follows publication, nor may strict liability be imposed for another person’s act.^[31]

3 Conclusions on the second proposal

65. The Commission recommends approving the second proposal’s direction and combining its Article 104 provisions with identical or overlapping provisions in the third proposal in a single text, after completing the definition of incitement and specifying increased penalties. This work must not become a condition delaying repeal of vague criminalization; it should be completed through the urgent joint examination of the package.

VII Opinion on the third proposal amending Articles 104 105 and 114

1 Scope and areas of overlap

66. The third proposal seeks to amend Articles 104, 105 and 114 and was registered on 1 October 2026.^[32]
67. It shares the second proposal’s direction of deleting the false-news offence and hard labour while retaining increased penalties for serious consequences. The observations in Section VI therefore apply, without duplicating alternative texts for the same article. Its principal addition is preventing circumvention of the exclusion of general criminal provisions and strengthening investigation safeguards.

2 Article 105 preventing circumvention and distinguishing non-application from general repeal

68. The Commission supports clarifying the non-application of general provisions to conduct governed by the Media Law. Precision requires avoiding descriptions of Article 105 as repealing all cited offences for every person and circumstance: it provides for non-application within the Law’s specific scope, leaving the provisions effective outside it, and must be read alongside the express repeals in Article 119.^[33]
69. The proposal adds references to subsections 3 and 4 of Chapter 2, Title 3, Book 2 of the Penal Code, and Articles 292 and 293, and highlights Article 157 of the Military Justice Code. The Commission recommends a precise list of the intended article numbers and texts in their versions in force, correcting sentence structure and cross-references rather than relying on incomplete references to a subsection or title heading.^[34]
70. The amendment must be read alongside Article 113 excluding military court jurisdiction and Article 119 repealing Legislative Decree No. 104/1977 in full. References to that decree must not suggest revival of its provisions. Excluding military jurisdiction alone does not repeal every substantive ground of criminalization: jurisdiction differs from applicability of a criminal provision.
71. The Commission draws on Rana Saghieh’s analysis in The Legal Agenda concerning renewed criminal prosecution through general characterizations after decriminalization of defamation within the special scope. It recommends a rule preventing recharacterization of the same act to circumvent civil safeguards, while preserving prosecution for separate conduct with distinct established elements, such as serious threats, assault or exploitation, without extension by analogy or prohibited duplicate punishment.^[35]
72. Protection must relate to the nature of the expression and conduct covered by the Law, not be reduced to a press card, union membership or income level. The Commission recommends clarifying coverage for freelance journalists, researchers, human rights defenders and others performing the function of publishing and circulating information within the Law’s scope, while recognizing differences in professional and regulatory obligations according to function.^[36]

3 Article 114 prohibition of detention and safeguards for judicial investigation

73. The Commission supports preserving the prohibition of pretrial detention within Article 114’s scope, regardless of the perpetrator’s status, and strengthening judicial investigation safeguards. Adding special protection for media professionals must not diminish the general protection in the article’s opening provision or be interpreted as allowing detention of non-professionals for expression covered by it.
74. “Investigation shall be conducted exclusively by the competent public prosecutors” requires clarification that it concerns taking statements and questioning during the preliminary investigation, preventing delegation of that task to the judicial police. Subsequent judicial investigation and trial remain with the authorities designated by law; the wording must not exclude investigating or trial judges or their review of procedures.
75. The Commission recommends specifying the prohibition’s effect on security-service summonses and disguised detention and preventing demands that publishers pledge to stop publishing or reveal sources outside the prescribed judicial conditions. Evidence-gathering or technical enforcement without questioning must be confined to a specific lawful mandate and judicial oversight, without circumventing exclusive judicial questioning or source-confidentiality safeguards.
76. Changing the investigator’s status is insufficient unless defence rights are effectively protected. The Commission recommends specifying access to counsel from the start of questioning, information on allegations and rights, silence, interpretation and proper documentation, respect for Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by Law No. 191/2020, and source-confidentiality rules in Article 116 of the Media Law.^[37]
77. It also recommends extending this procedural safeguard, on a clear functional basis, to anyone questioned about expression covered by the Media Law, rather than limiting it to those deriving most of their income from a media institution. Juvenile and victim safeguards must apply where relevant. The child’s right to complain or describe their experience, recommended in the first proposal, must not become grounds for summoning them without protection.

4 Temporal application and conclusions on the third proposal

78. The amendment should be coordinated with Articles 117, 118 and 119, specifying the effects of the more lenient criminal provision on proceedings and judgments under applicable rules, ending reliance on repealed offences and facilitating correction of criminal records. This must be separated from civil claims and acquired rights: compensation for established harm does not automatically lapse upon decriminalization.^[38]
79. The Commission recommends approving the third proposal’s direction after refining Article 104, redrafting Article 105 and defining the scope and safeguards of preliminary investigation in Article 114. It requests a single wording for provisions shared with the second proposal, without losing procedural additions and non-application safeguards.

VIII Interrelationship consolidation and immediate action

1 A unified package with independent assessment of each proposal

80. The three proposals complement one another at three levels: protecting equality and children’s rights and regulating professional responsibility; confining criminal exceptions to clearly defined incitement; and preventing procedural or substantive circumvention of publishing freedom. Reform cannot achieve its purpose if victims are protected while journalistic accounts remain vaguely criminalized, or false news is decriminalized while mechanisms intimidating speakers or exposing their identities remain.
81. Combining the proposals requires distinguishing professional error or bias addressed through correction, reply or proportionate regulatory measures, civil harm addressed through compensation and its safeguards, and criminal incitement subject to a high threshold. Non-discrimination and child protection principles in the first proposal must not be interpreted into new offences or used to restore what the other two remove.
82. The women’s quota and nomination and election mechanisms relate to the independence of the media regulator, a safeguard for effective rights, sanctions and complaints. Human Rights Commission Decisions Nos. 46, 47 and 48/2026 therefore inform transparent selection and prevention of conflicts of interest, while members and the Media Commission remain independent of the bodies electing or nominating them.

2 Request for consolidation before committee discussions begin

83. The Commission requests that the Presidency of Parliament, Parliament’s Bureau and competent committees, each within its powers, combine the three proposals into a single legislative file and joint reform package before any separate substantive committee discussion begins. Consolidation and preparation should take place immediately, with joint examination as the first substantive step, to avoid successive conflicting amendments to Article 104 or fragmentation of freedom-of-expression and rights safeguards.^[39]
84. Each proposal’s identity, explanatory memorandum and sponsors should be preserved. A unified comparison should show the existing text, Ezzeddine’s proposal, the Okais–Riachi–Ayoub proposal, the ten MPs’ proposal, and the common wording with reasons for the choices made. Views should be sought from the Government, judicial authorities, unions, human rights institutions, women and children through suitable participation methods within short, published deadlines.
85. Consolidation is a recommendation for organizing committee work and ensuring coherence, not a constitutional admissibility condition for each proposal or a barrier to commencing reform. The authorities should complete it promptly, prioritizing provisions removing present risks to liberty, preserving meaningful review and ensuring urgency does not replace technical examination.

3 No suspension pending the Ministry of Information’s anticipated bill

86. The Commission emphasizes that the existing proposals must be considered immediately under applicable procedures, independently of the Minister of Information’s announcement that another amendment bill is being prepared. Article 18 of the Constitution grants Parliament and the Council of Ministers the right to propose laws. A ministerial announcement of an intention to prepare a bill creates neither overriding priority nor a right to suspend parliamentary initiative, and is not equivalent to a duly referred government bill.^[40]
87. The Commission welcomes any government contribution strengthening freedoms and rights. If a government bill is adopted and duly referred during examination, it should be added to the package and compared with the existing proposals without restarting the process or postponing meetings indefinitely. The Government should state its position on the referred proposals and submit its amendments as soon as ready, within a clear timetable.
88. Waiting for improved administrative practice or assurances of implementers’ good intentions is insufficient: the risk of vague legislation persists while it remains in force. Nor does “no response” in the legislative record imply government approval or rejection or establish an assumed legal deadline for awaiting its opinion. Existing parliamentary procedures should be activated without indefinite political suspension.^[41]

4 Subsequent reform without delaying the package

89. The Commission draws on Rana Saghieh’s discussion of monopoly, advertising, public media, pluralism and trade union freedom. It recommends a subsequent consultative process with published deadlines, without burdening the current package with every sectoral reform or making completion of that process a precondition for removing the urgent restrictions addressed by these three proposals.^[42]

IX Proposed legislative wording for the unified package

1 General safeguard for rights and freedoms

“This Law shall be interpreted and applied to guarantee substantive equality, children’s rights, freedom of expression and the press, and privacy. Restrictions may be imposed only under a clear provision, for a legitimate purpose and to the extent necessary and proportionate, by a reasoned, reviewable decision. Criticism, research, journalistic reporting or artistic expression shall not, in itself, constitute a violation merely because it addresses discrimination or stereotypes, with due regard for the rights of others.”

2 Minimum representation of women

“The final composition of the Commission shall include at least three women, equivalent to 30% of its ten members; this percentage shall not constitute a ceiling. This guarantee shall apply across election, nomination and appointment routes, subject to eligibility, independence and expertise requirements, under a statutory mechanism defining the duties of the authorities concerned, how shortfalls are remedied, vacancies addressed and transitional provisions applied.”

This wording requires an implementation mechanism in the law itself: merely adopting a percentage and leaving seat allocation or invalidation of elections to later administrative discretion is insufficient. Election of the public freedoms and human rights expert and nomination of the two candidates under the Human Rights Commission’s mandate must be preserved.

3 Safeguards for advertising sanctions

“Removal of an advertisement shall initially be limited to the offending content identified in the decision. Sanctions shall reflect the violation’s gravity, repetition, harm and economic capacity. Suspension of advertising broadcasts shall be ordered only under an express power, for a specified period not exceeding the statutory maximum, following notice and an opportunity to defend, through a reasoned decision subject to appeal and an application to stay enforcement. Conditions, duration and review of urgent measures shall be specified by law.”

The Commission recommends setting maximum duration and fine amounts following an impact study, avoiding a minimum suspension without a maximum or delegation of the basic sanction to internal regulations.

4 Complaints safeguard

“A child may complain directly or with assistance from a person of their choice, without a guardian’s consent being required. Complainants’, children’s and witnesses’ identities and data shall be protected against unnecessary disclosure, retaliation and revictimization, and summaries and decisions published in identity-protecting form. Defence rights and judicial review shall be preserved, and a complaint shall not prevent recourse to competent judicial and human rights bodies.”

5 Identity protection respecting the adult victim’s wishes

“The identity of victims of offences covered by this Article shall not be disclosed directly or in a manner enabling identification, unless an adult victim expressly requests disclosure with free and informed consent, within the scope consented to and without identifying a child or another protected person. Consent to identify a child shall have no effect where it conflicts with their best interests or special protection safeguards.”

6 Decriminalization of false news and definition of increased penalties

“The paragraph on fabricating falsehoods and publishing false and harmful news in Article 104 shall be repealed, and the reference to hard labour deleted. The aggravating-penalty paragraph shall be redrafted to specify the penalty’s type and limits, serious consequences, causation and attribution conditions, while preserving liability for separate offences whose elements are established, without extending criminalization by analogy.”

The Commission emphasizes that “the penalty shall be increased” alone is not sufficient final wording. The extent of the increase must be specified in legislation following examination of the criminal-law framework, while preserving safeguards on the incitement threshold.

7 Preventing renewed criminalization of expression through general characterizations

“The general criminal provisions identified in this Law shall not apply to expressive acts governed by its special provisions, and the same act may not be subjected to them anew merely by changing its legal characterization so as to bypass this Law’s safeguards. This shall not preclude prosecution for a separate act with distinct established legal elements, respecting legality and fair-trial guarantees.”

This rule should be completed by a precise list of provisions in Article 105 and aligned with Article 119, without reviving repealed provisions or presenting special non-application as general repeal beyond its scope.

8 Preliminary investigation safeguard and prohibition of detention

“Pretrial detention shall not be permitted for offences covered by Article 114, regardless of the perpetrator’s status or profession. Competent public prosecutors shall personally take statements and conduct questioning in preliminary investigations relating to expression covered by this Law, without delegating this to the judicial police, while protecting defence rights and source confidentiality. Judicial investigation and trial powers shall remain with the authorities designated by law.”

The wording should be completed by specifying safeguards for notice, counsel, silence, documentation and review of procedures and the consequences of violations. Technical evidence-gathering must be regulated so that it does not become indirect security-service questioning.

9 Procedural recommendation on combining the proposals

“The three proposals to amend Media Law No. 69/2026 shall be combined into one package before any separate substantive committee discussion begins, and a comparative table and common wording prepared immediately, preserving their sponsors and explanatory memoranda. Examination shall not be suspended on the basis of an announcement that a government bill is being prepared; any bill duly referred later shall be added without unjustified delay.”

X Operative part of the consolidated opinion

For these reasons, the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, issues the following opinion:

• On the first proposal: support the objectives of equality, equal opportunities and child protection, while refining violations, sanctions, programme percentages, representation, complaints and privacy in accordance with the observations and wording above.
• On the second proposal: support deleting general criminalization of false news and hard labour, while preserving a high incitement threshold and precisely defining the type and limits of increased penalties and conditions for attributing consequences.
• On the third proposal: support addressing Articles 104, 105 and 114, clarifying non-application, repeals, preliminary investigation powers, defence rights and prohibition of detention.
• Request that the three proposals be combined in one package and shared file before any separate substantive committee discussion, with consolidation and the comparative table completed immediately, followed by a single wording for overlapping provisions without losing additions from any proposal.
• Emphasize that the proposals require immediate consideration under applicable procedures independently of the Minister of Information’s announcement of another amendment bill; that announcement neither suspends parliamentary initiative nor requires an open-ended wait.
• Call on the Government to state its position on the referred proposals and submit any official bill as soon as ready, adding it to the package upon referral without restarting the process or obstructing the removal of urgent restrictions.
• Prevent circumvention of decriminalization through recharacterization of the same act or expansion of protective principles into undefined offences, while ensuring protection of women, children and victims, effective remedies and accountability for separate offences meeting their legal conditions.
• Specify entry into force, temporal effects, pending proceedings, resources, regulatory deadlines, participation and evaluation, separating immediate rights safeguards from phased compliance arrangements, without prejudice to the more lenient criminal provision principle under applicable legal rules.
• Refer the opinion, after due adoption, to the Secretariat-General of the Council of Ministers in connection with letter No. 3041/م.ص, and notify the Presidency of Parliament, its Bureau, competent committees, the Minister of Information and relevant authorities of the joint recommendation, clarifying the scope of the original referral and expanded review.

^[1]Secretariat-General of the Council of Ministers, letter No. 3041/م.ص referring Dr Inaya Ezzeddine’s proposal for an opinion before presentation to the Council of Ministers; transmission by the Presidency of Parliament No. 6668/ص of 4 November 2026 and attachments. This referral concerns the first proposal alone.

^[2]Lebanese Republic, Law No. 62 of 27 October 2016, as amended, establishing the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Article 15(b)(3), on opinions concerning legislation and compatibility with national and international human rights standards: https://nhrclb.org/archives/2499

^[3]MP Dr Inaya Ezzeddine, proposed law amending certain provisions of Media Law No. 69 of 27 August 2026 to promote gender justice, equal opportunities and protection of children’s rights in the media, Beirut, 2 November 2026, Articles 1–11 and explanatory memorandum. Version published on the Commission’s website: https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Draft-Law-Amending-Certain-Provisions-of-Media-Law-No.-69-of-2026.pdf

^[4]MPs Georges Okais, Melhem Riachi and Ghada Ayoub, proposal amending Article 104 of Media Law No. 69/2026, registered on 11 September 2026 and referred to the Government on 16 September 2026 according to the accompanying legislative record. The original is three pages: explanatory memorandum on pages 1–2 and operative amendment of Article 104 and entry into force on page 3. It removes the false-news offence and hard labour while retaining increased penalties for serious consequences: https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Draft-Law-Amending-Article-104-of-Media-Law-No.-69-of-2026.pdf

^[5]The ten MPs named in the opinion, proposal amending Articles 104, 105 and 114 of Media Law No. 69/2026, dated 21 September 2026, registered on 1 October 2026 and referred to the Government on 7 October 2026 according to the legislative record. The original is six pages: operative provisions on pages 1–2, explanatory memorandum on pages 3–4 and comparison on pages 5–6. Version published on the Commission’s website: https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Draft-Law-Amending-Articles-104-105-and-114-of-Media-Law-No.-69-of-2026.pdf

^[6]Board of the National Human Rights Commission, Decisions Nos. 46, 47 and 48/2026, all dated 30 October 2026. Published texts: https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/NHRC-CPT-D-46_26.pdf https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/NHRC-CPT-D-47_26.pdf https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/NHRC-CPT-D-48_26.pdf

^[7]National Human Rights Commission, “The Commission’s Opinion on the Two Proposed Laws Concerning the Protection of Minors from Social Media Use”, 25 August 2026; and Bassam Al Kantar, “Protecting Children in the Digital Environment: Social Media Restrictions, Platform Accountability, and Human Rights Implications in Lebanon”, study published by the Commission on 12 May 2026. The opinion published on 15 November 2026 on strengthening minors’ protection in the digital environment also provides guidance, although its subject differs from the proposal amending the Media Law: https://nhrclb.org/archives/8227 https://nhrclb.org/archives/6945 https://nhrclb.org/archives/9664

^[8]Rana Saghieh, “The Media Law before Parliament Again: Additional Amendments to Safeguard Media Freedom”, The Legal Agenda — Parliamentary Observatory, 15 October 2026, particularly Section I on criminalization of false news and the risk of circumventing the subjection of defamation to civil liability. The article supports human rights analysis and does not replace the original text or rules of interpretation: https://www.lapoleb.com/analyse/قانون_الإعلام_مجد_د_ا_أمام_مجلس_الن_واب_تعديلات_إضافية_لضمان_حري_ة_الإعلام

^[9]Lebanese Constitution, Preamble, particularly paragraph (b), and Articles 7, 8, 13 and 20. Regulatory and sanctioning powers must be read in light of equality, liberty, access to justice and judicial independence safeguards. Constitution on the Presidency of the Republic’s website: https://presidency.gov.lb/lebanon-system/3

^[10]United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, Articles 2, 3, 14, 17, 19 and 26; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, document CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011, paragraphs 22, 25, 34, 39, 40 and 43, on restrictions on expression, their precision and proportionality, and regulation of media and the internet: https://2covenants.ohchr.org/About-ICCPR.html https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf

^[11]United Nations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 18 December 1979, Articles 1, 2, 4(1), 5, 7 and 11; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 25 (2004) on temporary special measures. The Convention establishes substantive equality and the recommendation interprets tools for accelerating its achievement; neither imposes a uniform 30% quota. Convention text and OHCHR–Inter-Parliamentary Union handbook addressing the recommendation: https://wrd.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/cedaw_2.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/OHCHR-IPU-CEDAW-Handbook-revised-edition.pdf

^[12]Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 40 (2024) on the equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems, document CEDAW/C/GC/40, particularly paragraph 2 on the definition of equal and inclusive representation and equal access and power within decision-making systems; paragraph 14 on the inadequacy of a 30% target for eliminating discrimination; and paragraph 15 on parity as full and equal power-sharing and a permanent governance principle. Full text:

https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/324/40/pdf/n2432440.pdf

^[13]United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, Articles 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 39 and 40; Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 25 (2021), document CRC/C/GC/25, on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment; UNICEF, professional principles and guidelines for reporting on children: https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text https://documents.un.org/api/symbol/access?l=en&s=CRC/C/GC/25&t=pdf https://www.unicef.org/eca/media/ethical-guidelines

^[14]International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 19 and 20, with Article 15 on legality and the more lenient criminal provision; Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and its six-part test. For a concise UN reference, see OHCHR’s May 2024 information note on hate speech and incitement to hatred in the electoral context, explaining context, speaker, intent, content, extent and likelihood of harm, including imminence. The Plan is guidance, not a treaty or an independent criminal provision: https://2covenants.ohchr.org/About-ICCPR.html https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2024-05/information-note-hate-speech-incient-hatred-in-electoral-context.pdf

^[15]Human Rights Committee, concluding observations on Lebanon’s third periodic report, document CCPR/C/LBN/CO/3, 9 May 2018, paragraphs 45 and 46 on freedom of expression, particularly the inappropriateness of imprisonment for defamation and the need to delimit interpretations of cybercrime; read alongside Covenant obligations and General Comment No. 34: https://documents.un.org/api/symbol/access?l=en&s=CCPR/C/LBN/CO/3&t=pdf

^[16]Lebanese Republic, Law No. 205 of 30 December 2020, Criminalizing Sexual Harassment and Rehabilitating Its Victims. Reference to the Law does not imply that criminal-law protection alone sufficiently prevents workplace harassment; the recommended institutional policies complement legal protection. Text published on the Commission’s website: https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/تجريم-التحرش-الجنسي-وتأهيل-ضحاياه-قانون-رقم-205.pdf

^[17]Media Law No. 69/2026, Articles 61–64, particularly the opening of Article 62 establishing freedom of electronic media. The review compares this provision with Article 4 of the proposal and recommends a functional definition of responsibilities to avoid conflating publishers, intermediaries and individual expression: https://nhrclb.org/archives/8313

^[18]Article 5 of the proposal, amending Article 68, compared with Articles 65–68, 90 and 94 of the Media Law. Observations on maximum duration, defence and appeals are proposed additions, not assumptions that an unspecified ceiling or detailed competence already exists: https://nhrclb.org/archives/8313

^[19]Media Law, Article 74, paragraph (a), particularly item 7, and subsequent paragraphs on compilation of records and the appointment process. The public call clarifies that the process concerns three different persons: one directly elected member and two nominees whose nomination does not constitute appointment: https://nhrclb.org/archives/8313 https://nhrclb.org/archives/9221

^[20]Decision No. 46/2026, particularly Articles 1–7 on launching the process, application methods, eligibility, completion of applications, observations, interviews and election; Decision No. 47/2026 on the Preparatory Committee; Decision No. 48/2026 on the public call and nomination and assessment tools. An official account of each decision’s function appears in the Commission’s announcement of 30 October 2026: https://nhrclb.org/archives/9244 https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/NHRC-CPT-D-46_26.pdf https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/NHRC-CPT-D-47_26.pdf https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/NHRC-CPT-D-48_26.pdf

^[21]Decision No. 46/2026, Articles 3 and 6; public call, Sections VI, VII and IX on verification, assessment, election and data protection. Score ranking is a comparison tool that neither replaces eligibility requirements nor produces automatic election; the Commission’s Board makes the final decision: https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/NHRC-CPT-D-46_26.pdf https://nhrclb.org/archives/9221

^[22]Decision No. 46/2026 and its timetable annex; public call, Section X. The proposed transitional provision reflects the candidacy procedures launched by the Commission on 30 October 2026, with an announced application period of 2–18 November 2026. This does not mean that the proposed statutory amendment has taken effect or final elections have occurred: https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/NHRC-CPT-D-46_26.pdf https://nhrclb.org/archives/9221

^[23]Media Law No. 69/2026, Article 73, particularly item 8 on criminal disqualifications, and Article 83(b)(4) on termination of membership, compared with Article 7 of the proposal. The public call applies statutory disqualifications, which cannot be replaced by an interests declaration or subsequent undertaking: https://nhrclb.org/archives/8313 https://nhrclb.org/archives/9221

^[24]Media Law, Articles 72(b), 76, 81, 83 and 94, on independence, incompatibilities, conflicts of interest, termination and review. Impartiality, declaration and recusal safeguards in Decision No. 47/2026 also provide guidance; election does not mean that a member represents or is subject to instructions from the electing body: https://nhrclb.org/archives/8313 https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/NHRC-CPT-D-47_26.pdf

^[25]Article 9 of the proposal amending Article 91, read alongside Articles 90, 93 and 94 of the Media Law and the Human Rights Commission’s powers under its founding law. Children’s direct right to complain, complaint deadlines and suspension of time limits only by express provision are additions recommended for statutory inclusion: https://nhrclb.org/archives/8313 https://nhrclb.org/archives/2499

^[26]Article 10 of the proposal adding two items to Article 98(a). For guidance on indirect identification risks, see UNICEF’s ethical guidelines on reporting on children, particularly privacy principles and the prohibition of publishing material exposing children, siblings or peers to danger even where names are changed or identities obscured: https://www.unicef.org/eca/media/ethical-guidelines

^[27]Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 3 and 12 on best interests and hearing children’s views, Articles 16 and 17 on privacy and media, and Article 40(2)(b)(vii) on privacy in justice proceedings. These are supplemented by UNICEF’s professional guidelines cited above on interviewing and risk assessment; a guardian’s consent alone does not remove the protection duty: https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text

^[28]MPs Georges Okais, Melhem Riachi and Ghada Ayoub, proposal amending Article 104 of Media Law No. 69/2026, registered on 11 September 2026 and referred to the Government on 16 September 2026 according to the accompanying legislative record. The original is three pages: explanatory memorandum on pages 1–2 and operative amendment of Article 104 and entry into force on page 3. It removes the false-news offence and hard labour while retaining increased penalties for serious consequences: https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Draft-Law-Amending-Article-104-of-Media-Law-No.-69-of-2026.pdf

^[29]Rana Saghieh, “The Media Law before Parliament Again: Additional Amendments to Safeguard Media Freedom”, The Legal Agenda — Parliamentary Observatory, 15 October 2026, particularly Section I on criminalization of false news and the risk of circumventing the subjection of defamation to civil liability. The article supports human rights analysis and does not replace the original text or rules of interpretation: https://www.lapoleb.com/analyse/قانون_الإعلام_مجد_د_ا_أمام_مجلس_الن_واب_تعديلات_إضافية_لضمان_حري_ة_الإعلام

^[30]International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 19 and 20, with Article 15 on legality and the more lenient criminal provision; Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and its six-part test. For a concise UN reference, see OHCHR’s May 2024 information note on hate speech and incitement to hatred in the electoral context, explaining context, speaker, intent, content, extent and likelihood of harm, including imminence. The Plan is guidance, not a treaty or an independent criminal provision: https://2covenants.ohchr.org/About-ICCPR.html https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2024-05/information-note-hate-speech-incient-hatred-in-electoral-context.pdf

^[31]Lebanese Constitution, Article 8; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 15; comparison of the operative Article 104 amendment on page 3 of the second proposal and page 1 of the third. The observation concerns specifying the penalty and conditions for attributing consequences; it does not assume that deleting hard labour repeals separate offences against life and physical integrity: https://presidency.gov.lb/lebanon-system/3 https://2covenants.ohchr.org/About-ICCPR.html

^[32]Ten MPs’ proposal, heading on page 1, item 3 on page 2 and comparison on page 6. Record and original version: https://lapoleb.com/law_project/1820 https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Draft-Law-Amending-Articles-104-105-and-114-of-Media-Law-No.-69-of-2026.pdf

^[33]Media Law No. 69/2026, Articles 105, 113 and 119, compared with item 2 of the ten MPs’ proposal, page 2 and comparison on page 6. The review distinguishes non-application of general provisions within the Media Law’s special scope, exclusion of military jurisdiction and express legislative repeal of certain provisions, which have different legal effects: https://nhrclb.org/archives/8313 https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Draft-Law-Amending-Articles-104-105-and-114-of-Media-Law-No.-69-of-2026.pdf

^[34]The ten MPs named in the opinion, proposal amending Articles 104, 105 and 114 of Media Law No. 69/2026, dated 21 September 2026, registered on 1 October 2026 and referred to the Government on 7 October 2026 according to the legislative record. The original is six pages: operative provisions on pages 1–2, explanatory memorandum on pages 3–4 and comparison on pages 5–6. Version published on the Commission’s website: https://nhrclb.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Draft-Law-Amending-Articles-104-105-and-114-of-Media-Law-No.-69-of-2026.pdf

^[35]Rana Saghieh, cited article, Sections I and IV. The analysis discusses recharacterizing offences to circumvent civil reform and adding references to Articles 292 and 293, provisions on defamation of public authorities, particularly Articles 385–387, and Article 157 of the Military Justice Code. This opinion recommends checking every reference against legislation in force before final drafting and avoiding presentation of special non-application as general repeal: https://www.lapoleb.com/analyse/قانون_الإعلام_مجد_د_ا_أمام_مجلس_الن_واب_تعديلات_إضافية_لضمان_حري_ة_الإعلام

^[36]Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, document CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011, particularly paragraph 44 on the broad function of journalism extending beyond traditional professional work and paragraph 47 on defamation laws and penalties. The proposed addition concerns functional expression safeguards; it does not remove regulatory distinctions among institutions, intermediaries and individuals: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf

^[37]Media Law No. 69/2026, Articles 114 and 116; item 3 of the third proposal, page 2. For preliminary investigation safeguards, Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by Law No. 191/2020; National Human Rights Commission, “Monitoring Human Rights Violations in Places of Detention in Lebanon: Deprived of Everything”, on Article 47 safeguards and implementation limits. Exclusive judicial questioning and additional safeguards here are legislative recommendations, not provisions already in force before adoption: https://nhrclb.org/archives/8313 https://nhrclb.org/archives/1744

^[38]Media Law, Articles 117, 118 and 119 on proceedings, judgments and repeals; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 15(1) on benefiting from a lighter penalty. The opinion recommends express transitional provisions, distinguishing effects of decriminalization from civil rights and enforcement mechanisms under applicable rules: https://nhrclb.org/archives/8313 https://2covenants.ohchr.org/About-ICCPR.html

^[39]Lebanese Constitution, Articles 16 and 18; Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, Part II on legislative procedures, referral to competent committees and transmission to the Government for examination. Consolidation before separate examination is the Commission’s recommendation for coherence and faster action, not a new constitutional admissibility condition or a Commission decision directing parliamentary work: https://presidency.gov.lb/lebanon-system/3 https://www.presidency.gov.lb/storage/lebanon-system-terms/March2025/5lo4kt861TWLBWI170rS.pdf

^[40]Lebanese Constitution, Article 18, on Parliament’s and the Council of Ministers’ right to propose laws. For the Minister of Information’s announcement of another bill, Lebanese Ministry of Information, “Minister Morcos from Parliament after Adoption of the Media Law: A Fundamental Building Block, and I Will Work Hard to Include the Remaining Media and Trade Union Proposals Not Adopted by Parliament”, 11 August 2026, including the announcement of work on an amendment bill. The statement alone does not establish adoption by the Council of Ministers or referral to Parliament: https://presidency.gov.lb/lebanon-system/3 https://mail.ministryinfo.gov.lb/112144

^[41]Legislative record attached to the request for expanded review: referral of the second proposal to the Government on 16 September 2026 and the third on 7 October 2026, marked “no response”. The third proposal’s details appear in the record below. This phrase is not evidence of implied approval or a substitute for procedural verification with the competent secretariats: https://lapoleb.com/law_project/1820

^[42]Rana Saghieh, cited article, “Reforms Still Required”, on monopoly, advertising, public media, professional pluralism and trade union freedom. The opinion recommends a subsequent process for these issues without making urgent reforms in the three proposals conditional on them: https://www.lapoleb.com/analyse/قانون_الإعلام_مجد_د_ا_أمام_مجلس_الن_واب_تعديلات_إضافية_لضمان_حري_ة_الإعلام

هذه المقالة متاحة أيضًا بـ: