Observed on 10 October, World Day Against the Death Penalty reaffirms the protection of the right to life, raises awareness of the risks of an irreversible punishment, and mobilizes efforts towards universal abolition. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights advocates the universal abolition of the death penalty, recognizing the fundamental nature of the right to life.
In Lebanon, this year’s observance has particular significance following the legal abolition of capital punishment. The National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (NHRC-CPT), stresses that safeguarding this achievement requires continued reform of the penal system and the elimination of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments.
The Commission’s forthcoming campaign will focus on abolishing hard labour in all its forms: aggravated or otherwise, lifelong or for a fixed term, including sentences reduced on mitigating grounds. It calls for their replacement with penalties that respect human dignity and proportionality and provide meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation.
What Did Law No. 68 Change?
Law No. 68 abolishing the death penalty was issued on 7 August 2026 and published in Official Gazette No. 36 on 20 August 2026. It entered into force upon publication.
The law abolished the death penalty wherever it appeared in Lebanese legislation and amended Article 37 of the Penal Code. Aggravated life imprisonment with hard labour now heads the list of ordinary criminal penalties, followed by life imprisonment with hard labour, life detention, fixed-term imprisonment with hard labour, and fixed-term detention.
The law distinguishes between offences committed after its entry into force, for which the death penalty is replaced by aggravated life imprisonment with hard labour, and offences committed beforehand, for which it is replaced by life imprisonment with hard labour. Abolition also covers all previously issued death sentences that had not been carried out.
It repealed Article 43 of the Penal Code and Articles 420–424 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also provides for the application of investigation, prosecution, trial and sentence-enforcement procedures to offences whose death penalty has been replaced by aggravated life imprisonment with hard labour. For persons sentenced to this aggravated penalty, sentence reductions are restricted to the procedure established under Law No. 463/2002 on the enforcement of penalties.
Implementation requires clear judicial follow-up to address the situation of affected prisoners, determine the applicable legal framework according to the date of the offence, and enable individuals and their lawyers to understand the law’s effects on their sentences and the available avenues of review. The Commission considers that this process should open the way to a broader examination of replacement penalties and their conditions of enforcement.
The Commission’s Position: Abolition Begins a Wider Reform Process
The Commission welcomed progress towards abolition and, in its statement of 5 June 2026, called for hard labour to be abolished alongside the death penalty and replaced with imprisonment for the same duration. This position reflects its conviction that protecting society and holding offenders accountable must go hand in hand with respect for human dignity and the rehabilitative purpose of punishment.
Its forthcoming campaign seeks to remove hard labour from the entire system of penalties. Deleting the term “aggravated,” or reducing a sentence’s duration or severity, does not by itself address the nature and conditions of the work imposed or ensure that its enforcement is free from harm or humiliation. Reform must therefore cover the provisions establishing the punishment, mechanisms for its replacement and reduction, and the rules governing its enforcement.
The Commission proposes imprisonment as the statutory replacement for hard labour, alongside a sentencing framework that considers the seriousness and circumstances of each offence, permits fair judicial review, and supports rehabilitation. Non-custodial penalties can also be expanded for appropriate offences, subject to safeguards protecting society and victims’ rights.
The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-Treatment Applies Regardless of the Offence
Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In General Comment No. 20, the Human Rights Committee affirmed that this prohibition protects human dignity and physical and mental integrity, extends to corporal punishment, and remains applicable even during public emergencies. Neither the seriousness of an offence nor orders from public authorities can justify violating this protection.
Article 16 of the Convention against Torture requires States to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that does not amount to torture when committed by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or another person acting in an official capacity. In General Comment No. 2, particularly paragraph 3, the Committee against Torture explained that preventing torture and preventing ill-treatment are interconnected and that the prohibition of ill-treatment is likewise non-derogable.
A punishment must therefore be assessed beyond its name or legal classification. Its physical and psychological effects, conditions of enforcement, and safeguards for those subjected to it must also be examined. The Commission considers that reform should remove any element that makes pain or humiliation an objective of punishment and ensure independent monitoring, effective complaint mechanisms, investigation of abuses, and accountability.
Article 8: A Limited Exception That Does Not Authorize Harm or Humiliation
Article 8 of the Covenant establishes a specific exception to the prohibition of forced or compulsory labour. Paragraph 3(b) concerns hard labour imposed by a competent court in countries whose laws permit imprisonment with hard labour as punishment for certain crimes. This exception concerns forced or compulsory labour; it does not authorize slavery or servitude.
Paragraph 3(c)(i) separately excludes certain work or services normally required of a person detained pursuant to a lawful court order, or during conditional release from such detention. This provision is distinct from the exception for a sentence of hard labour and does not automatically make every task imposed by prison authorities lawful.
Reading Article 8 alongside the Covenant’s other provisions requires a distinction between the legal basis for requiring work and the lawfulness of the conditions under which it is performed. Detention alone does not authorize the imposition of a hard-labour sentence that a court has not ordered. Equally, a judicial sentence does not permit enforcement methods that violate the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment.
Forcing a prisoner to work to the point of severe exhaustion, exposing them to harmful conditions, or using violence and humiliation to compel them to perform tasks may violate Article 7, depending on the circumstances, the severity and duration of suffering, and the person’s health.
Article 8 does not, by itself, impose an absolute prohibition on every form of hard-labour sentence. However, it neither requires States to retain this punishment nor exempts them from the Covenant’s other safeguards. The Commission’s call for abolition rests on the need to develop a penal policy that preserves dignity, prevents harm, and promotes rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation and Safe Work Are Central to Humane Treatment
Article 10 of the Covenant requires States to treat all persons deprived of their liberty humanely and with respect for their inherent dignity. It also makes the reformation and social rehabilitation of convicted persons an essential aim of the penitentiary system.
In General Comment No. 21, particularly paragraph 10, the Human Rights Committee emphasized that a penitentiary system should not be solely retributive but should seek reformation and social rehabilitation. It also explained that respect for dignity cannot depend on the material resources available. Working conditions in prisons may therefore violate the duty of humane treatment even when they do not reach the threshold of ill-treatment prohibited by Article 7.
The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, translate these principles into practical standards. Rule 97 prohibits prison labour of an afflictive nature, slavery and servitude, and compulsory work for the personal or private benefit of prison staff. Subsequent rules establish safeguards concerning health and safety, working hours and rest, while Rule 103 provides for equitable remuneration for prisoners’ work. Although these rules are not a standalone treaty, they constitute an important UN standard for guiding legislation and practice.
The Commission proposes that replacing hard labour should be accompanied by education, vocational training and safe work programmes that take account of individual health and abilities, provide equitable remuneration, and ensure effective avenues for complaints. These programmes should help prisoners acquire skills, prepare for reintegration, and rebuild their lives after release.
Proportionality and Judicial Review: Direct Recommendations from the Special Rapporteur
Completing reform requires addressing the consequences of automatically replacing the death penalty with a uniform punishment for offences that differ in gravity and circumstances. In his communication to the Lebanese authorities dated 29 January 2026, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Morris Tidball-Binz, warned that automatic substitution could restrict judicial discretion and produce disproportionate sentences.
He recommended a framework allowing courts to determine the replacement sentence individually, taking account of the nature and seriousness of the offence, the offender’s circumstances, the impact on victims, mitigating and aggravating factors, and prospects for rehabilitation.
He also recommended a clear, transparent and accessible mechanism to review the situation of persons sentenced to death, ensuring judicial oversight and fair-trial guarantees and resulting in lawful, reasoned and proportionate replacement sentences. Where necessary to ensure justice, this framework should permit proceedings to be reopened or a retrial to take place. He further stressed that review of convictions and sentences by a higher tribunal must be substantive, rather than merely a formal check that the prescribed penalty was applied.
These recommendations addressed the draft legislation before its adoption and remain relevant to assessing and improving the replacement framework. Issued through a UN special procedure, they complement the legal foundation provided by treaties and the interpretations of treaty bodies.
Protecting Society and Upholding Victims’ Rights
The Commission calls for effective judicial review mechanisms and publicly established criteria for sentence reductions. These should consider progress towards rehabilitation, risk assessments, public protection and victims’ rights, and ensure reasoned decisions.
This process should also safeguard victims’ and families’ rights to information, remedies and reparation, and enable their participation in proceedings in accordance with the law. Determining, modifying and enforcing penalties nevertheless remains the responsibility of the State and the judiciary, subject to equality and fair-trial guarantees. The Commission affirmed this principle in its June 2026 statement, welcoming the decision to abandon proposals that would have made the benefit of abolition dependent on the position of victims’ families.
Consolidating Abolition and Completing Penal Reform
Accession to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, remains an important step towards consolidating this achievement internationally. In paragraph 34 of General Comment No. 36, the Human Rights Committee affirmed that States parties that have abolished the death penalty are barred from reintroducing it.
On World Day Against the Death Penalty, the Commission renews its commitment to protecting the right to life and pursuing the abolition of hard labour in all its forms. It calls for clear and proportionate replacement penalties, humane enforcement, effective oversight, and meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration. Justice that protects life must also preserve dignity—in legislation and at every stage of its application.
هذه المقالة متاحة أيضًا بـ:
