The National Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has published an important institutional communication addressed to the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (SPT), contributing to the international discussion on the interpretation of Article 4 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT).

The document, referenced 9/71 Archive 119, was formally addressed to Mrs. Suzanne Jabbour, President of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, with a copy to Mr. Nika Kvaratskheklia, Head of the Asia-Pacific Regional Team of the SPT, and represents Lebanon’s contribution to the preparation of a General Comment on Article 4 of OPCAT, one of the most central provisions governing the scope of preventive monitoring of places where individuals may be deprived of their liberty.

The communication was submitted by Lebanon’s National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), represented by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, acting within the framework of its mandate under Article 20(f) of OPCAT and Article 27(b) of Lebanese Law No. 62 of 27 October 2016, which established the National Human Rights Commission including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

Strengthening International Guidance on the Prevention of Torture

Article 4 of OPCAT is widely regarded as a cornerstone of the global preventive system against torture. It defines the scope of the monitoring mandate entrusted to both the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) and National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) worldwide, particularly regarding the types of places they are entitled to visit in order to prevent torture and ill-treatment.

In its submission, the NHRC-CPT emphasizes that the correct interpretation and practical application of Article 4 are essential for ensuring that States Parties effectively fulfil their obligations under OPCAT. The document highlights the importance of adopting a broad and purposive interpretation of the concept of “places of deprivation of liberty,” consistent with the preventive spirit of the Convention.

The Commission’s analysis underscores that Article 4(1) of OPCAT establishes a broad definition, requiring States to allow visits by both NPMs and the SPT to any place under their jurisdiction or control where persons are or may be deprived of liberty, whether by virtue of a formal order from a public authority or with its consent, acquiescence, or instigation.

This interpretation extends beyond traditional detention facilities such as prisons, police stations, and pretrial detention centers, and includes a wider range of institutions where individuals may be deprived of their liberty in practice.

Expanding the Scope of Preventive Monitoring

The NHRC-CPT’s submission stresses that the preventive framework established by OPCAT requires recognition that deprivation of liberty can occur in both public and private settings, including institutions where individuals are placed under the supervision of non-state actors but with the knowledge or consent of public authorities.

Accordingly, the Commission notes that institutions such as private hospitals, psychiatric facilities, nursing homes, rehabilitation centers, and children’s homes may also fall within the scope of Article 4 if individuals in these settings are not free to leave at will.

The document further addresses a potential interpretative tension between Article 4(1) and Article 4(2) of OPCAT. While Article 4(1) adopts a broad formulation covering situations involving public authority consent or acquiescence, Article 4(2) defines deprivation of liberty more narrowly as detention ordered by a judicial, administrative, or other authority.

The Commission argues that a systematic and teleological interpretation of the Protocol requires Article 4(2) to be interpreted in light of the broader definition set out in Article 4(1). Such an interpretation aligns with the fundamental purpose of OPCAT, which is to prevent torture through proactive oversight of all environments where individuals may be vulnerable to ill-treatment.

Interaction with Lebanese Law

The publication also examines how these international standards intersect with Lebanon’s domestic legal framework.

Lebanese Law No. 62 of 27 October 2016, which established the National Human Rights Commission and the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, adopted a definition of deprivation of liberty that largely reflects the wording of Article 4(2) of OPCAT.

Article 22(B) of Law 62 defines deprivation of liberty as any form of detention or placement in a custodial setting from which a person cannot leave freely by order of a judicial, administrative, or other public authority.

The law lists a number of institutions that fall under this definition, including:

• prisons and detention centers,

• police stations,

• juvenile facilities,

• ports and airports,

• hospitals and psychiatric institutions.

It also identifies the authorities responsible for supervising these institutions, including the Internal Security Forces, General Security, State Security, the Customs Administration, the Ministry of National Defense, and the Ministry of Justice.

However, the Commission notes that this definition does not explicitly include situations where deprivation of liberty occurs with the consent or acquiescence of public authorities, which may limit the scope of preventive oversight in practice.

To address this gap, the Committee announced its intention to work with Lebanese authorities, particularly the Ministry of Public Health, to develop safeguards related to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) for persons with mental health conditions and elderly individuals, including those living with dementia.

Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic

The submission also documents practical challenges encountered by Lebanon’s preventive mechanism during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting how emergencies can expose weaknesses in oversight mechanisms.

During the pandemic, the Committee actively sought to implement the guidance issued by the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture to States Parties and NPMs regarding COVID-19, which emphasized the importance of maintaining preventive monitoring even in times of crisis.

On 22 March 2020, the Committee addressed a letter to the Lebanese Prime Minister requesting the necessary support and capacity-building measures to ensure that members and experts of the National Preventive Mechanism could continue to exercise their mandate, including visits to quarantine facilities and hospitals, where individuals might be subjected to conditions amounting to deprivation of liberty.

While the Ministry of Public Health initially indicated that certain quarantine facilities had not yet been used, subsequent attempts by the Committee to visit hospitals designated for quarantine were hindered by the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) provided by the authorities.

In addition, discussions held in January 2021 with a governmental committee established by the Ministry of Interior to manage pandemic responses in prisons and detention facilities revealed that the definition of places of deprivation of liberty being used in practice was limited primarily to prisons and detention centers, excluding other institutions where individuals might be confined.

These experiences illustrate the need for clear legal definitions and strong institutional support to ensure that preventive mechanisms can operate effectively during emergencies.

Strengthening the National Preventive Mechanism

The communication also raises concerns regarding Lebanon’s compliance with certain obligations under OPCAT.

Lebanon ratified OPCAT on 22 December 2008, thereby committing itself to establish and support an effective National Preventive Mechanism capable of carrying out independent monitoring of places of detention.

However, the Committee notes several challenges that have affected the full implementation of these obligations, including:

• the absence of sufficient financial resources allocated to the NHRC-CPT in the state budget,

• delays in adopting and publishing all executive decrees required to fully implement Law No. 62/2016,

• and the need to amend certain provisions of the law to fully align with Article 18 of OPCAT and the Paris Principles governing national human rights institutions.

Ensuring adequate funding and institutional independence remains a key requirement for enabling the National Preventive Mechanism to function effectively.

Mapping Places of Deprivation of Liberty in Lebanon

As part of its submission, the Committee also provided an extensive overview of the types of institutions that fall within its monitoring mandate in Lebanon.

These include facilities under the authority of:

• the Internal Security Forces, including prisons, police stations, and border detention facilities,

• the General Directorate of General Security, including refugee detention centers,

• the General Directorate of State Security, including investigation and temporary detention facilities,

• the Customs Administration, including detention facilities at border crossings and ports,

• the Lebanese Armed Forces, including military detention centers and military police facilities.

In addition, the Committee emphasized that deprivation or restriction of liberty may occur in institutions supervised by other ministries, including:

• hospitals and psychiatric institutions under the Ministry of Public Health,

• elderly care institutions and rehabilitation centers,

• orphanages, shelters, and social care facilities under the Ministry of Social Affairs,

• boarding schools and institutions under the Ministry of Education and Higher Education,

• and juvenile rehabilitation centers supervised by the Ministry of Justice.

This broad mapping reflects the preventive philosophy of OPCAT, which recognizes that risks of torture or ill-treatment may arise in any environment where individuals are placed under custodial control and cannot freely leave.

Contributing to the Global Fight Against Torture

Through this submission, Lebanon’s National Human Rights Commission and its Committee for the Prevention of Torture reaffirm their commitment to supporting the international system established under OPCAT.

By contributing to the development of authoritative guidance on the interpretation of Article 4, the Commission seeks to strengthen preventive monitoring worldwide and promote a comprehensive understanding of places where individuals may be deprived of their liberty.

The Commission emphasized that effective prevention of torture requires not only strong laws but also independent oversight, adequate resources, and clear institutional mandates.

Ensuring that preventive mechanisms can access all relevant places of detention, without restriction, remains essential for protecting human dignity and preventing abuses before they occur.

The NHRC-CPT reiterated its readiness to continue working with national authorities, international partners, and civil society organizations to strengthen Lebanon’s preventive framework and to advance the universal goal of eradicating torture and ill-treatment in all places of detention.

هذه المقالة متاحة أيضًا بـ: