NHRC Calls on the Council of Ministers Not to Extradite Former Palestinian Ambassador Ashraf Dabbour to the Palestinian Authority

The National Human Rights Commission, which includes the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, is following with grave concern the detention of Mr. Ashraf Atef Dabbour, the former Palestinian Ambassador to Lebanon, and the proceedings initiated pursuant to an extradition request issued by the Palestinian authorities. His case has been referred to the Council of Ministers for consideration of his extradition to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. While affirming its respect for the independence of the Lebanese judiciary and the need to investigate any suspected corruption, illicit enrichment, money laundering, or embezzlement of public funds, and to prosecute those responsible through fair and transparent legal proceedings, the Commission stresses that the nature of the charges brought against any person—regardless of their seriousness—does not absolve the Lebanese State of its absolute international obligations concerning the prohibition of torture and the principle of non-refoulement. Nor does it permit the transfer of any person to an authority where there are substantial grounds for believing that they may be subjected to torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, or denial of fair-trial guarantees. In this context, the Commission calls on the Lebanese Council of Ministers not to approve the extradition of Mr. Ashraf Dabbour to the Palestinian Authority, in light of the recent and alarming information issued by the United Nations Human Rights Office in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as the legal and factual arguments set out in the defence memorandum submitted in response to the extradition request. These arguments require an independent and thorough judicial examination before any decision is taken that could affect his liberty or result in his transfer outside Lebanese territory. The Commission does not, at this stage, endorse all the facts or legal conclusions contained in the defence memorandum, nor does it rule on their validity. It nevertheless considers that the memorandum raises fundamental issues that cannot be disregarded, including whether the conditions for extradition stipulated in the Lebanese Penal Code have been met, the jurisdiction of the Lebanese courts, the legal status of the person whose extradition is sought, the possibility that the request may be politically motivated, and the risk of torture and arbitrary detention.

Recent UN Reports Confirm the Continuing Risk of Torture

The Commission draws particular attention to the position issued by the United Nations Human Rights Office on 22 July 2026, just weeks before Mr. Dabbour’s detention and the consideration of the request for his extradition. In that statement, the Office condemned the Palestinian authorities’ continued arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of liberty of dozens of individuals.

The UN Human Rights Office reported that several of these individuals were being detained under a law that the Palestinian Supreme Constitutional Court had previously ruled unconstitutional. It also documented the continued detention of male prisoners, including children, despite judicial orders for their release. This raises serious concerns regarding the Palestinian security forces’ compliance with judicial decisions, the independence of the judiciary, and the effectiveness of the remedies available to persons deprived of their liberty.

This information is directly relevant to the assessment of the request for Mr. Dabbour’s extradition. The continued detention of individuals in defiance of judicial release orders demonstrates that the mere issuance of judicial decisions or provision of formal assurances may not, in itself, constitute an effective and sufficient safeguard against unlawful detention, torture, or ill-treatment. The recent nature, seriousness, and authoritative source of this information—the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights—make it an essential consideration that the Lebanese authorities must neither disregard nor downplay when taking any decision concerning extradition or surrender.

Lebanon’s Absolute Obligation to Uphold the Principle of Non-Refoulement

The Commission recalls that Lebanon acceded to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 5 October 2000, and that the Convention’s provisions are binding on all its constitutional, judicial, and administrative authorities.

Article 3 of the Convention clearly provides:

“No State Party shall expel, return (‘refouler’) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”

The Convention also requires that, in determining whether such a risk exists, all relevant considerations be taken into account, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights in the territory to which the person would be transferred.

This provision constitutes the legal foundation of the principle of non-refoulement, which is absolute and permits no exception or limitation. It may not be set aside on the grounds of the seriousness of the charges, the protection of public security, political relations, judicial cooperation, or compliance with a request issued by a foreign authority.

This prohibition applies to all forms of transfer outside Lebanese territory, whether characterised as extradition, judicial surrender, administrative expulsion, removal, deportation, or direct and informal handover. What matters is not the designation given to the procedure, but its outcome, namely, placing the person under the authority of an entity where they may be exposed to torture or ill-treatment.

The Requirement to Verify the Conditions for Extradition Under Lebanese Law

In addition to the international obligation of non-refoulement, the Commission notes that the defence memorandum submitted by Mr. Dabbour’s legal counsel raises serious arguments concerning whether the legal conditions for extradition under Articles 30 to 35 of the Lebanese Penal Code have been met.

Article 30 of the Lebanese Penal Code provides that, outside the cases stipulated by law, no person may be extradited to a foreign State except pursuant to a treaty having the force of law. According to the defence memorandum, no treaty having the force of law is currently in effect between Lebanon and the State of Palestine regulating extradition. The request must therefore be assessed under the provisions of the Lebanese Penal Code, whose requirements must be interpreted strictly given the direct impact of extradition on personal liberty and fundamental rights.

Lebanon and Palestine are both parties to the Arab Convention on the Transfer of Inmates of Penal and Correctional Institutions in the Context of the Enforcement of Criminal Judgments, adopted within the framework of the League of Arab States and entered into force in 2013. However, that Convention governs the transfer of convicted persons for the enforcement of final criminal judgments; it does not apply to requests for the extradition of individuals based on non-explicit indictments or judgments that have not become final.

Accordingly, the extradition request may not be treated as a purely political or administrative measure. Rather, all its legal requirements must be rigorously verified, all impediments to extradition must be ruled out, and the validity of the supporting documents and information, as well as the jurisdiction of the authorities that issued them—must be established, while ensuring effective judicial oversight throughout the entire process.

The Legal Status of a Palestinian Refugee Residing in Lebanon

The Commission notes that the defence memorandum also raises the question of Mr. Dabbour’s legal status and whether he may be considered a “national of the requesting State” within the meaning of Article 31 of the Lebanese Penal Code.

According to the documents cited in the memorandum, Mr. Dabbour was born in Al-Bass Palestinian refugee camp in Tyre and has resided permanently in Lebanon. He is registered with the Lebanese Directorate General of Political Affairs and Refugees and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) as a Palestinian refugee in Lebanon. He also holds, or previously held, a travel document for Palestinian refugees issued by the Lebanese Republic.

The memorandum further states that he has never resided permanently in the territories administered by the Palestinian Authority and that his service as Ambassador of the State of Palestine to Lebanon between 2012 and 2025 did not alter his status as registered with the Lebanese authorities and UNRWA.

The Commission considers that the legal implications of these circumstances must not be determined through an administrative or political decision. They must instead be subjected to an in-depth judicial assessment to determine the nature of the legal relationship between the person concerned and the requesting authority and whether the requirements of Article 31 of the Penal Code have been met, with due regard for the status of Palestinian refugees residing in Lebanon and their right to legal and judicial protection.

In all circumstances, the precarious legal status of a Palestinian refugee—or the absence of an effective nationality affording protection—must not be used as a basis for reducing their safeguards. On the contrary, these circumstances should result in enhanced protection against arbitrary transfer, torture, and denial of the right to a fair trial.

The Risk Must Be Assessed in Light of Current Circumstances

The Commission stresses that any assessment of the risk of torture must be individualised, independent, thorough, and up to date. It must be based on the circumstances prevailing at the time the extradition decision is taken, rather than on general assumptions or formal assurances.

In the case of Mr. Ashraf Dabbour, this assessment cannot be separated from several interrelated factors, most notably:

• His former position as Ambassador of the State of Palestine to Lebanon from 2012 to 2025;
• The politically and diplomatically sensitive nature of his former position;
• Circulating allegations that the prosecution may be connected to internal disputes or score-settling, which require investigation rather than assumption;
• The nature of the security authority that may be responsible for his detention and interrogation following extradition;
• Recent United Nations reports documenting torture, arbitrary detention, and failures to implement judicial orders for the release of detainees;
• The ability of the Palestinian authorities to implement any assurances they may provide and to ensure independent and effective monitoring of compliance with them.

The Commission does not prejudge the innocence or responsibility of the person concerned in relation to the allegations against him. However, the distinction between criminal responsibility and protection from torture is fundamental: a person may be wanted for investigation or trial, yet their extradition remains absolutely prohibited where there is a real and foreseeable risk that they would be subjected to torture.

Guaranteeing the Rights of Defence and an Effective Appeal

The Commission calls upon the Lebanese authorities to grant Mr. Ashraf Dabbour and his legal counsel access to the complete extradition file, including all accompanying documents, evidence, and assurances. They must also be afforded sufficient time and facilities to present their arguments and evidence concerning the conditions for extradition, judicial jurisdiction, the accuracy of identity information, the possibility of a political motive, and the risks of torture, arbitrary detention, and an unfair trial.

He must also be able to challenge any extradition decision before an independent and impartial judicial body, and any such appeal must have suspensive effect, thereby preventing his transfer until a final judicial decision has been issued on whether the extradition complies with the Lebanese Penal Code, Article 3 of the Convention against Torture, and Lebanon’s other international obligations.

The Commission further calls for guarantees of his physical and psychological safety while he remains in detention in Lebanon, his ability to communicate freely and confidentially with his lawyers and family members, and protection from any pressure intended to compel him to accept extradition or waive his rights. His detention must not be continued unless it is based on clear legal grounds, necessary and proportionate, and subject to periodic judicial review.

Recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission, Including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture

In light of the foregoing, the National Human Rights Commission, which includes the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, recommends the following:

1. That the Council of Ministers refrain from approving the extradition of Mr. Ashraf Dabbour to the Palestinian Authority, given the availability of recent and credible information providing substantial grounds for believing that he would face a risk of torture, ill-treatment, or arbitrary detention.
2. That an individualised, independent, comprehensive, and up-to-date risk assessment be conducted, taking into account reports issued by the United Nations Human Rights Office and other independent international mechanisms, as well as the personal, political, and legal circumstances surrounding the case.
3. That the extradition requirements set out in Articles 30 to 35 of the Lebanese Penal Code be subjected to rigorous judicial scrutiny, including the existence of a legal basis, Lebanese territorial jurisdiction, the legal status of the person sought, the nature and purpose of the request, and the accuracy of the identity information provided.
4. That the location where the alleged acts occurred be established, and that priority be given to the jurisdiction of the Lebanese courts if the acts are found to have occurred on Lebanese territory and to fall within their jurisdiction.
5. That allegations of a political motive behind the extradition request be independently investigated, pursuant to Article 34 of the Penal Code, without treating such an investigation as prejudging the substance of the charges.
6. That Mr. Dabbour and his legal counsel be granted access to the complete extradition file and be allowed to submit evidence and legal arguments and to challenge any decision issued in his case, with enforcement suspended until all effective judicial remedies have been exhausted.
7. That general or unverifiable diplomatic assurances not be accepted as a substitute for the absolute obligation of non-refoulement.
8. That his detention in Lebanon not be allowed to continue arbitrarily, and that its legality, necessity, and proportionality be subjected to genuine and periodic judicial review.
9. That alternative mechanisms of judicial cooperation be pursued to facilitate investigation, accountability, and asset recovery where sufficient evidence and jurisdiction exist, without exposing the person concerned to the risk of torture or violating his fundamental rights.
10. That clear and binding national standards be adopted for the application of the principle of non-refoulement to all decisions concerning extradition, surrender, expulsion, removal, and deportation, while ensuring the involvement, where appropriate, of national bodies responsible for human rights and the prevention of torture in risk assessments.

Accordingly, the Commission calls upon the Council of Ministers to adopt a clear decision not to extradite Mr. Ashraf Dabbour to the Palestinian Authority and to ensure that any suspected criminal conduct is addressed within a legal and judicial framework that respects the applicable rules of jurisdiction and the rights of the defence. This is necessary to protect his absolute right not to be subjected to torture, to implement the Convention against Torture, to uphold the principle of non-refoulement, and to reaffirm Lebanon’s commitment to the rule of law and respect for human rights.

هذه المقالة متاحة أيضًا بـ: