Enforced disappearance remains one of the gravest and most complex violations of human rights, due to its composite nature that simultaneously infringes upon multiple fundamental rights. In contexts marked by armed conflict, political instability, and increasing regional security cooperation, concerns are mounting over the risk of such practices re-emerging or being facilitated under the guise of security measures.

Definition and Absolute Prohibition
The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006) defines enforced disappearance as the arrest, detention, abduction, or any other form of deprivation of liberty carried out by state officials or by persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, thereby placing them outside the protection of the law.

The Convention clearly stipulates that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war, threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for enforced disappearance. This establishes its prohibition as absolute under international law.

A Multi-layered Violation of Non-Derogable Rights
Enforced disappearance constitutes a continuous and multifaceted violation of human rights. It not only deprives individuals of their liberty but also violates the right to security, the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to life, and the right to an effective remedy.

International human rights bodies and courts have consistently recognized the close link between enforced disappearance and torture. The prohibition of torture itself is a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens), binding on all states without exception, and entails an obligation to investigate allegations and prosecute those responsible.

Legal Safeguards Against Arbitrary Detention
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Lebanon acceded in 1972, provides essential safeguards aimed at preventing enforced disappearance.

Article 9 guarantees the right to liberty and security of person and prohibits arbitrary arrest or detention. It further establishes the right of any detained person to challenge the legality of their detention before a court without delay. The UN Human Rights Committee has clarified that these protections apply to all forms of detention, including those related to national security or counterterrorism.

Article 14 complements these guarantees by ensuring the right to a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence, access to legal counsel, the right to present a defense, examine witnesses, and appeal judgments. These procedural safeguards are critical in preventing secret or unacknowledged detention.

Lebanon’s Obligations Under International Humanitarian Law
Lebanon is a party to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol II, which governs non-international armed conflicts. These instruments require all parties to treat persons deprived of liberty humanely at all times and prohibit violence to life, torture, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity.

The prohibition of enforced disappearance has also attained the status of customary international law, making it binding on all states regardless of treaty ratification.

Field Indicators: Incidents of Deprivation of Liberty in 2025
Developments in Lebanon during 2025 point to a number of incidents involving unlawful deprivation of liberty, particularly in border regions.

On 19 March 2025, Lebanese military intelligence rescued two Syrian nationals who had been abducted in the Jammaliyeh area of Baalbek. On 25 March, a Syrian minor kidnapped in Hortaala was freed following a security operation, with suspects arrested and weapons seized.

On 27 March 2025, 56 Syrian nationals were arrested in the outskirts of Arsal for irregular entry, raising questions regarding detention conditions and due process guarantees. Additional incidents included the rescue of a kidnapped Syrian national in April and cross-border security cooperation in May involving the transfer of a suspect in a high-profile criminal case.

While these incidents differ in nature, they collectively underscore the risks associated with unlawful or poorly regulated deprivation of liberty, particularly in fragile security contexts.

Within this broader context, the case of poet and political dissident Abdulrahman Youssef al-Qaradawi illustrates the potential human rights risks associated with regional security cooperation.

Arrested in Lebanon on 28 December 2024 and transferred to the United Arab Emirates on 8 January 2025, his subsequent fate and whereabouts have remained unclear, with no regular contact with his family or lawyer. This situation may amount to enforced disappearance under international law.

UN Special Rapporteurs raised concerns in November 2025 regarding possible violations of the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits transferring individuals to countries where they risk torture or ill-treatment, and called for transparency and accountability.

International law leaves no ambiguity: enforced disappearance is absolutely prohibited and constitutes a serious violation that may amount to an international crime. Preventing it requires robust legal safeguards, independent judicial oversight, and full transparency in all deprivation of liberty procedures.

While Lebanon is formally bound by these standards, recent developments highlight the need to strengthen implementation mechanisms, ensure judicial scrutiny of detention and transfer decisions, and prevent security cooperation from undermining fundamental rights.

هذه المقالة متاحة أيضًا بـ: