Lebanese authorities have begun implementing the judicial agreement signed with the Syrian Arab Republic concerning the transfer of convicted persons from the country where the sentence was issued to the country of the convict’s nationality. This was initiated through the handover of the first group of Syrian prisoners convicted in Lebanese prisons, in what has been described as the first direct and practical application of a bilateral judicial cooperation agreement that comprehensively regulates the mechanisms for transferring prisoners and enabling them to complete their sentences in their home country.

The Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, Judge Jamal Al-Hajjar, signed a decision ordering the transfer of 137 Syrian prisoners who had been serving their sentences in Roumieh Central Prison, after verifying that all legal conditions stipulated in the agreement were met. The agreement, signed in Beirut, was ratified by Lebanon under Decree No. 2574 dated 30 January 2026 and published in the Official Gazette on 19 February 2026. It provides for the transfer of convicted persons from the sentencing state to their country of nationality to complete the execution of their sentence, within a clearly defined legal and procedural framework.

Syrian Minister of Justice Mazhar Al-Wais stated in a post on the platform “X”: “Following intensive efforts by the Ministry of Justice, we have today received the first batch of prisoners, totaling 132 individuals, under the agreement concluded with the Lebanese side.” According to a source cited by Agence France-Presse, “106 convicted prisoners were transferred from Roumieh Prison, in addition to 31 others from Qobbeh Prison in Tripoli (north), and the convoy headed towards the Masnaa border crossing to hand them over to the Syrian authorities.”

This operation constitutes the first batch out of a total of 347 Syrian prisoners who have applied for transfer to Syria. Additional batches are expected to follow, subject to the completion of legal and administrative procedures for each individual case.

The handover process took place inside Roumieh Central Prison under coordinated administrative, logistical, and security arrangements. These included the completion of prisoners’ personal and judicial files, the preparation of their belongings, and coordination between Lebanese and Syrian judicial and security authorities. According to available information, a Syrian convoy of five to six buses arrived at the prison, accompanied by Syrian security personnel, with the group then escorted by Lebanese General Security to the Masnaa border crossing for formal transfer.

The importance of this step extends beyond its operational dimension, as it is grounded in a detailed agreement that defines the philosophy, objectives, conditions, and legal consequences of the transfer process. The official document explicitly states that its purpose is to strengthen bilateral cooperation in criminal matters and to facilitate the rehabilitation and social reintegration of convicted persons by enabling them to serve the remainder of their sentence within their national and social environment, while respecting the principles of sovereignty, equality, reciprocity, and non-interference in internal affairs.

The agreement clearly defines key concepts governing the transfer mechanism. The “sentencing state” refers to the state where the judicial ruling was issued, while the “administering state” refers to the state to which the person is transferred to complete the sentence. A “judgment” is defined as any final and enforceable criminal decision imposing a custodial sentence, including cases where the original sentence may have been the death penalty if the person is transferred without its execution. The “sentence” includes any measure restricting liberty, including additional penalties associated with the judgment.

According to the official text, transfers are not automatic or collective. They require the fulfillment of a set of legal conditions. These include that the convicted person must be a national of the administering state and not of the sentencing state, that the judgment must be final and enforceable, that the person is not subject to other pending trials, and that they provide free, informed, and explicit written consent to the transfer after being informed of its legal consequences. Where the person cannot freely express consent due to age or physical or mental condition, such consent may be provided by a legal representative. The agreement also requires that the act leading to conviction be punishable under the laws of the administering state, reflecting the principle of double criminality.

The agreement adds another important condition: both the sentencing state and the administering state must explicitly agree to the transfer. This means that transfer is not based solely on the request of the prisoner or their state but requires mutual consent between the competent authorities of both countries. It also excludes certain categories of crimes, notably murder and rape, unless the convicted person has served at least ten years of imprisonment in the sentencing state.

At the same time, the agreement grants both states the right to refuse transfer in specific cases. The sentencing state may refuse if it considers that the transfer would affect its sovereignty, security, public order, or essential interests. Refusal is also possible if the convicted person has not fulfilled financial obligations related to civil claims, or if the sentence has become unenforceable in the administering state due to lapse of time or other legal reasons. These limitations demonstrate that the agreement treats transfer not as a mere administrative measure but as a sovereign judicial process governed by strict safeguards.

Implementation of the agreement is entrusted to the Ministries of Justice of both Lebanon and Syria, acting as central authorities. Communication may take place directly or through diplomatic channels, and each party must notify the other of any changes in its central authority. The agreement also provides for border measures to prevent the return of the transferred person to the other state after completion of the sentence or legal proceedings, unless explicitly authorized, while maintaining the applicability of immigration laws.

Procedurally, the agreement obliges the sentencing state to inform any eligible convicted person of its provisions and legal consequences. If the person applies for transfer, the sentencing state must promptly notify the other state. This notification must include detailed personal information, the facts underlying the conviction, the nature and duration of the sentence, the date of commencement of execution, and the applicable legal provisions. It must also be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment and related judicial decisions, proof of its finality, details of the portion of the sentence already served and the remainder, any additional penalties, the legal provisions criminalizing the act, and the written consent of the convicted person or their legal representative.

The requested state must communicate its decision, whether acceptance or refusal, without delay, and transfer procedures must be completed within a maximum period of one month from receipt of the request. The time, place, and procedures of handover are determined urgently by the central authorities of both countries, which explains the organized and operational nature of the first transfer conducted at Roumieh Prison.

Regarding costs, the agreement distinguishes between transit expenses, which are borne by the receiving state, and other costs incurred up to the moment of transfer, which are borne by the party that incurs them. This financial arrangement aims to prevent ambiguity in administrative responsibilities.

The administering state is responsible for continuing and completing the execution of the sentence in accordance with its national laws, but based on the judicial decision issued by the sentencing state. The portion of the sentence already served is credited toward the total sentence, and the duration of imprisonment is calculated according to the system of the sentencing state. The agreement also enshrines the principle of non bis in idem, ensuring that the transferred person cannot be prosecuted or tried again for the same offense.

The agreement also addresses the modification or review of judgments. If the sentencing state modifies the judgment after transfer, it must transmit the updated decision and supporting documents to the central authority of the administering state, which will continue execution accordingly. If the judgment is revised, the transferred person has the right to have the updated decision communicated promptly. The administering state must also provide periodic or requested updates on the execution of the sentence, including release decisions or termination of execution.

Notably, the agreement stipulates that all requests, documents, and communications are to be conducted in Arabic. It also applies retroactively to sentences imposed prior to its entry into force, thereby covering prisoners already in Lebanese prisons before ratification. The agreement enters into force thirty days after signature, and its termination does not affect the execution of transfer requests submitted prior to termination.

The implementation of this agreement is particularly significant in the Lebanese context, where prisons—especially Roumieh—suffer from chronic overcrowding and a high proportion of foreign inmates, placing sustained pressure on detention infrastructure and administration. In this regard, transferring convicted persons to their home countries is seen as a tool to alleviate this burden while maintaining judicial processes, enforcing sentences, and safeguarding victims’ rights.

Beyond its immediate penal dimension, the step carries broader political and judicial implications. It may open the door to enhanced coordination in shared judicial and security files between Lebanon and Syria, particularly regarding prisoner transfers, judicial cooperation, and potentially other long-standing pending issues.

Historical Background of Judicial Agreements Between Lebanon and Syria

Judicial cooperation between Lebanon and Syria dates back to the early post-independence period, when the first legal framework was established through the judicial agreement concluded in Damascus on 25 February 1951 and ratified in Lebanon by a law issued on 27 October 1951. This agreement laid the foundation for organizing judicial relations between the two countries, reflecting their deep historical, geographical, and social ties.

The 1951 agreement focused on establishing general rules for judicial cooperation, including the exchange of legal information and judicial decisions, guaranteeing access to courts for nationals of both countries, and regulating judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters, including the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. It also enshrined the principle of equality in access to justice.

This framework was further developed, particularly following the Treaty of Brotherhood, Cooperation, and Coordination in 1991, which strengthened bilateral cooperation across multiple sectors, including the judiciary. Subsequent complementary agreements, notably the 1996 supplementary agreement, enhanced information exchange, judicial training, and coordination mechanisms between the Ministries of Justice of both countries.

These agreements expanded cooperation into more specialized areas such as arbitration and cross-border enforcement, reflecting the evolution of legal and commercial relations between the two states.

In light of emerging challenges, particularly those related to foreign prisoners and prison overcrowding, the recent agreement on the transfer of convicted persons represents a natural extension of this historical trajectory. It marks a shift from general cooperation frameworks to more advanced, operational mechanisms addressing practical and urgent issues.

Accordingly, the current agreement can be seen as part of a cumulative legal and institutional process spanning more than seventy years, reflecting the evolution of Lebanese-Syrian judicial relations from traditional cooperation to direct procedural partnership in the cross-border administration of criminal justice.

هذه المقالة متاحة أيضًا بـ: