Bassam Al Kantar – Commissioner for International Relations and Information, National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture
Lebanon’s torture prevention framework witnessed institutional, financial and organisational developments in 2026 that strengthened the foundations for the work of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. These developments nevertheless coincided with persistent problems in places of deprivation of liberty, particularly overcrowding, inadequate healthcare, barriers to legal assistance, delays in implementing release orders, and risks associated with isolation and insufficient supervision. A review of publications issued by the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, shows that translating institutional development into tangible, everyday protection for detainees remains the central challenge. Assessing progress requires tracking implementation and outcomes alongside regulations, budget allocations and announced activities.
An Established Legal Framework and Challenges in Implementation
The National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, was established under Law No. 62 of 27 October 2016. The law grants the Commission legal personality and administrative and financial independence, while the Committee performs its preventive functions and issues its reports independently. The Committee serves as Lebanon’s national preventive mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. This framework places prevention within a permanent national structure based on visiting places of deprivation of liberty, examining treatment and conditions, identifying risks, making recommendations, and engaging with the authorities on reform. This function extends beyond intervening after a violation has occurred or a specific complaint has been received.
The law provides for a Commission comprising ten members, five of whom constitute the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Decree No. 3267 appointing the Commission’s members was issued on 19 June 2018, followed by Decree No. 5147 appointing the Committee’s members on 5 July 2019. These measures marked two stages in building the institution, but did not, by themselves, resolve the funding, equipment, regulatory and staffing problems that subsequently affected the regularity and scope of its work.
The Committee worked on a voluntary basis for an extended period while the prerequisites for making it fully operational remained incomplete. The developments of 2026 therefore form part of a cumulative process that began years earlier, rather than a new beginning disconnected from previous work. Legal establishment, the appointment of members, the commencement of fieldwork, the completion of regulations, and the determination of the first term’s starting date are distinct matters. The internal bylaws link the commencement of the first term to the issuance of all implementing decrees, making its temporal scope a matter requiring documented institutional consideration. This precision helps avoid reducing the institution’s history to the date its members were appointed or assuming that all operational requirements had been met at that time.
The Committee for the Prevention of Torture is also distinct from the Commission’s other specialised committees, including those concerned with international humanitarian law, child victims, the rights of persons with disabilities, and human trafficking. These committees can provide expertise, information and referrals useful to preventive work, but their functions do not replace the mandate of the national preventive mechanism. Clarifying these roles is practically important when publishing news and reports: using the Commission’s full institutional name does not, on its own, establish whether an activity constitutes a preventive visit, a complaint investigation, legal assistance, or thematic human rights protection work.
Visiting Powers in Law and Practice
The legal framework grants the Committee extensive powers to access places of deprivation of liberty, conduct regular and unannounced visits, interview detainees in private, and examine relevant information and records. It also allows recourse to medical examinations when necessary and the submission of recommendations concerning treatment, detention conditions, and the prevention of torture and ill-treatment. These powers matter because risks do not always emerge through formal complaints. They may stem from a facility’s operating arrangements, staff shortages, persistent denial of services, or practices that detainees hesitate to discuss in the presence of management.
Effective access remains a decisive test of these powers. Administrative coordination may facilitate visits, but it loses its purpose if it becomes a requirement to obtain discretionary approval or a means of controlling the choice of location, timing and interviewees. Entering a building is likewise insufficient to establish that a visit was complete if access to certain wings or records, or the conduct of confidential interviews, was prevented. Reports need to explain each visit’s scope and limitations and indicate whether it was complete or partial, since findings drawn from one part of an institution do not necessarily describe all its sections.
A distinction also arises between preventive visits and arrangements to assist individual detainees. Arrangements with judicial or security authorities may allow lawyers to review files or follow up on release orders, performing an important protective function. They do not, however, replace the Committee’s right to examine the overall detention environment, select the people it interviews, review relevant records, and return when necessary. Clearly distinguishing these two avenues protects preventive independence while preserving the value of legal assistance in addressing urgent situations, without presenting either activity as a substitute for the other.
The Budget: Increased Allocations and the Test of Resource Availability
The Commission’s approved budget for 2026 amounted to approximately LBP 50.99 billion, compared with approximately LBP 33.515 billion in 2025. This increase provides a broader financial foundation for the institution’s work, encompassing its general mandate and the Committee’s preventive function. Interpreting these figures nevertheless requires distinguishing between approved appropriations, funds actually transferred, and expenditure that can be executed in time. The ability to conduct an urgent visit or engage an independent doctor depends on funds being available and usable, rather than solely on the existence of a budget line.
The financial bylaws safeguard the Committee’s share at no less than one quarter of the Commission’s total budget. Based on the 2026 appropriation, this represents a minimum of LBP 12,747,500,000, or approximately LBP 12.75 billion. The 25 per cent share is a minimum and may increase according to need. Its significance lies in securing dedicated resources for preventive work within an institution with multiple mandates, reducing the possibility that other commitments will displace that work. In practice, however, protecting this share also depends on clear management arrangements, timely availability, and the Committee’s ability to determine spending priorities.
Preventive needs include transport to facilities, repeat visits, access to medical, mental health and social work expertise, interpretation, secure information storage, and follow-up on recommendations. Some of these needs cannot accommodate lengthy procedures, particularly when urgent risks emerge or information is received about deteriorating health or possible reprisals. Financial independence therefore concerns both the size of allocations and procedures that allow the Committee to implement its programme while respecting accounting and oversight requirements. Clear information on appropriations, transfers, commitments and expenditure remains necessary to assess whether financial guarantees have translated into operational capacity.
External partnerships support certain activities and provide expertise, but they do not remove the State’s responsibility to provide adequate and stable resources for the national preventive mechanism. Excessive dependence on intermittent funding opportunities may undermine the continuity of visits and follow-up, or give some areas greater prominence than others according to available resources. Predictable funding strengthens the Committee’s ability to set risk-based priorities, including returning to previously monitored facilities and following the conditions of groups less visible in public debate. It also facilitates a balanced programme rather than limiting work to responding to widely reported incidents.
Premises, Staffing and the Code of Ethics
On 12 February 2026, the Commission announced the opening of its official headquarters in the Serhal Building on Sami El-Solh Boulevard in Beirut, under the patronage of the President of the Republic, represented by the Minister of Justice. The premises provided a permanent address for institutional work, receiving enquiries and submissions, and coordinating with relevant bodies. This represented a practical improvement over previous working conditions, but the premises’ value cannot be measured by their existence alone. Their functions require arrangements that protect visitors’ privacy, facilitate accessibility, and safeguard files, testimonies and medical information, particularly when detainees, children or people afraid of disclosing their identities are concerned.
The year also saw procedures to recruit legal researchers, alongside an initiative to establish a roster of multidisciplinary experts to support preventive work. Additional legal staff assist with research, analysis, file review and follow-up, but cannot alone meet every requirement of a visit. Examining detention conditions requires medical, psychological, social and administrative perspectives, and may involve nutrition, medication, ventilation, the management of isolation, or access to services. A distinction therefore remains necessary between strengthening the Commission’s overall staffing and completing the specialised team the Committee needs to implement an independent and regular preventive programme.
In September 2026, the issuance of a Code of Ethics added a framework governing professional conduct, addressing independence, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, protection from exploitation and abuse, and accountability. These rules have direct significance for visits because team members interact with people in vulnerable situations and handle information that may affect their safety. Implementation requires clear training, defined responsibilities, and procedures for reporting misconduct and examining it fairly. It also requires safeguarding independent professional judgement so that disagreement with an oversight recommendation does not become grounds for penalising its author, provided the work was undertaken within the mandate and applicable rules.
Monitoring Results and the Need for Comparable Data
The 2025 annual report, published in the Official Gazette in August 2026, provides a reference point for assessing subsequent developments. Earlier reports on human rights violations in places of detention and visits to Tripoli and Zahle prisons also make it possible to track problems over time rather than treating each visit as an isolated event. Comparison becomes particularly important when inadequate care, overcrowding or judicial obstacles recur across different facilities and periods.
Institutional performance indicators carry different meanings. The number of visits alone does not establish their depth, duration or the restrictions encountered. The number of files reviewed does not equal the number of people whose circumstances improved, and the number of recommendations does not demonstrate implementation. This highlights the need for a record distinguishing complete visits, partial visits and unsuccessful attempts, while linking observations to subsequent action. Such a record helps provide a more accurate picture of preventive capacity and determine whether increased activity has expanded access, improved services, or reduced specific risks within institutions.
Assessing outcomes requires combining written information with direct observation. A facility’s management may report that repairs have been completed or medication has become available, but verification may require examining records, interviewing detainees, and checking whether the service continues. Similarly, a person’s release may demonstrate that an individual case was resolved while the process that caused the delay remains unchanged. This approach distinguishes urgent intervention from systemic reform and measures the impact of each. It also prevents achievements from being overstated or undervalued by tying assessments to what could be documented within clear limits.
Legal Assistance and Safeguards from the Moment of Arrest
Access to lawyers and the implementation of detention safeguards featured in meetings with the Beirut Bar Association and judicial authorities. Discussions addressed barriers to implementing Article 47, difficulties locating certain detainees, detention on behalf of geographically distant units, delays in implementing release orders, and the inadequate presence of juvenile protection representatives during initial questioning. These issues show that risks are not confined to prison conditions. They begin in the first hours after arrest, when people are most dependent on the detaining authority and least able to obtain outside support.
Accurate detention registration underpins other safeguards. Knowing the time of arrest, the person’s whereabouts and the responsible authority allows families, lawyers and judicial authorities to track the person’s situation and limits periods of uncertainty that may increase vulnerability to coercion or neglect. This becomes particularly important when detainees are transferred between units or facilities. Preventive monitoring requires examining the continuity of records, comparing them with accounts received, and checking that transfers do not interrupt access to a lawyer, delay appearance before a judicial authority, or leave people without their medication or medical information.
Legal assistance involves more than a lawyer’s name appearing in a file. The practical standard concerns timely contact, confidential consultation, an understanding of rights and procedures, and effective representation. Material, administrative and financial obstacles affect this access, particularly for children and people whose families lack sufficient resources. Partnerships with the Bar Association and organisations supporting legal aid therefore provide an important avenue, provided they include clear referral and follow-up procedures and are assessed by effective access to services rather than the number of meetings or agreements alone.
Delays in implementing release orders also affect both individual liberty and overcrowding. A judicial decision loses part of its effect when implementation remains pending because procedures are incomplete or coordination is weak. Reviewing cases helps identify where delays arise, whether in notification, records, information transfers or other obstacles. Addressing these problems requires a clear timeline from the issuance of a decision to its execution, documenting the reasons for delay and the authorities responsible at each stage to improve the process and prevent recurrence.
A Preventive Mandate Extending Beyond Conventional Prisons
The Committee expanded its mapping of places of deprivation of liberty to include security, military and judicial facilities, juvenile institutions, psychiatric, health and social care institutions, and other settings that people may not be free to leave. This understanding rests on the actual situation within a facility and its relationship with public authority, rather than its administrative designation alone. Its significance lies in recognising that some people may experience severe restrictions outside conventional prisons, while their access to lawyers, complaint mechanisms or independent oversight is less clear.
Including a category in this mapping does not mean that the Committee has visited every institution within it, or that their legal and practical circumstances are identical. Some places require further examination to determine freedom to leave, the basis for residence, the nature of restrictions, and the authorities’ role in supervision, authorisation or acquiescence. Certain categories also raise specific legal questions, including premises benefiting from diplomatic protections. Preventive mapping therefore requires information on each facility, its supervising authority, its residents and indicators of detention, distinguishing confirmed situations from places requiring further examination.
Expanding monitoring makes it possible to build a risk-based programme rather than consistently concentrating on the largest or most publicly visible institutions. A small institution may warrant an urgent visit because residents are isolated, oversight is weak, or complaint mechanisms are absent. Certain groups may also require different interviewing methods or specialised expertise. Doctors and specialists in mental health, social work and disability can help teams understand these settings, provided the team’s task remains clearly defined, information is protected, and observations lead to recommendations that competent authorities can implement and follow up.
Mental Health, Disability and Drug Policy
Involuntary admission to psychiatric institutions, restraint, isolation, forced treatment, and respect for personal autonomy and participation are fundamental issues that intersect with the preventive mandate when people are not free to leave.
Cooperation between the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the Commission’s committee concerned with protecting the rights of persons with disabilities strengthens understanding of the barriers some detainees face. Problems may concern communication, difficulty understanding procedures, inaccessible premises, or complete dependence on staff for basic needs. The participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organisations helps identify these barriers and formulate practical recommendations. Each body retains its own mandate, while coordination helps prevent circumstances from being overlooked through standard visiting tools that fail to accommodate different needs.
In drug policy, the Commission is advancing a public health and human rights approach through the drafting and consultation process surrounding the “Charter of Rights of People Affected by Drug Use”. These discussions intersect with prevention through detention conditions, access to treatment, continuity of medication, responses to withdrawal symptoms, and the nature of residence in rehabilitation centres. Monitoring requires examining institutional practices, residents’ ability to leave, and the protection of confidential health information.
Accountability for Torture and Survivors’ Rights
The implementation of Law No. 65/2017 and proposals for its amendment remained among the issues addressed by the Commission. Its publications raise concerns about the definition of torture, penalties, limitation periods, jurisdiction, the independence of investigations, and access to reparation. These concerns show that prevention requires a legal and institutional environment in which allegations can be seriously examined and the risk of impunity reduced.
Judicial developments in individual cases require an accurate account of their procedural stage. An indictment, an administrative judgment or the opening of a trial each carries a specific meaning, but none is equivalent to a final criminal conviction or proves, by itself, that remedies have become effective for everyone affected. Such precision protects the significance of judicial developments from exaggeration and keeps questions about implementation, compensation and independent investigation clearly in view. It also prevents different forms of responsibility from being conflated or findings still subject to review from being presented as settled, providing a more reliable foundation for monitoring reform and discussing obstacles.
Lebanese law guarantees the absolute prohibition of torture, including during conflict, security pressures and situations involving suspicion of serious crimes. In field practice, this principle should translate into the continued application of health, legal and oversight safeguards, without reduction because of the alleged offence or surrounding circumstances. It also requires taking indicators of coercion seriously, preserving evidence, and enabling independent examination and appropriate referral. Distinguishing prevention from investigation remains essential, while recognising that a visit may reveal an urgent need for protection or information requiring safe referral to the competent authority, subject to the necessary safeguards.
Publishing the Charter of Rights of Victims and Survivors of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and participating in a national round table on supporting them formed part of the year’s agenda. Discussions focused on protection, legal assistance, psychosocial support, rehabilitation and participation. Follow-up requires identifying available referral pathways, eligibility conditions, their continuity, and whether the people concerned can actually access them. It also requires respecting their choices and refraining from transferring, publishing or using their information beyond the agreed purpose, except with their informed consent or on a legitimate legal basis, while observing confidentiality and protection safeguards.
Israeli Aggression, Transfers and Continuity Safeguards
Hostilities carried out by Israeli occupation forces during 2026 placed additional pressure on detention institutions and raised questions concerning evacuation, transfers, capacity and detainee safety. According to the Commission’s , in March, 86 detainees were transferred to Roumieh, while another 40 were moved from facilities in Khiam, Bint Jbeil and Meiss El Jabal to Saida. Approximately 120 people remained in Nabatiyeh prison at that time. Transfer risks arise when a person’s movement becomes disconnected from their records, medication, judicial follow-up and contact with family and counsel. Increased numbers in receiving institutions may also worsen overcrowding or place additional pressure on healthcare, water and services. Follow-up therefore requires identifying the actual destination, transfer date and responsible authority, and verifying treatment continuity and notification of the relevant parties. Emergency plans must account for children, patients, persons with disabilities and others requiring additional arrangements. Transfers themselves remain measures requiring assessment; describing them as protective does not establish that all their consequences have been addressed.
International Cooperation and Professional Partnerships
Communication with the United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture continued as part of the preventive framework, drawing on submissions and reports, including a contribution concerning Article 4 of the Optional Protocol and a report submitted by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture in 2022.
Cooperation with the Association for the Prevention of Torture and the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance addressed training, support for visiting teams, legal assistance and institutional development. Other initiatives sought to broaden the pool of experts and strengthen multidisciplinary work.
Engaging experts and partners entails clear requirements for selecting participants, defining roles, assessing conflicts of interest, ensuring confidentiality and providing supervision. External expertise strengthens the Committee’s capacity, but must be integrated into a programme led by the Committee and guided by its priorities. Knowledge generated through short assignments should also be retained within the institution rather than lost when an assignment ends. This is especially important in repeated follow-up on a facility or issue, where methodological continuity and institutional memory are valuable. Training can support this continuity when accompanied by practical tools, assessment of how skills are applied, and review of improvements in monitoring and recommendations.
Institutional Accreditation and the Committee’s Relationship with International Mechanisms
These developments coincided with progress on the Commission’s accreditation application to the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. This process concerns compliance with the Paris Principles and the requirements of institutional independence and effectiveness. It remains distinct, however, from the designation and functioning of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture under the Optional Protocol. The Subcommittee provides advice, assistance and recommendations on prevention; it does not grant accreditation equivalent to that of the Global Alliance. Clarifying this distinction prevents confusion between two processes that share complementary objectives but have different foundations, criteria and procedures.
The presentation of the institutional structure in the accreditation application highlighted the distinct nature of the Committee’s preventive mandate, its resources and staff, and its independence in setting its programme and preparing reports. This precision helps protect independence within an institution with multiple mandates and explains how responsibilities are distributed without undermining coordination. It also allows assessment of whether organisational arrangements function in practice, rather than merely existing in legal texts, and how disagreements or obstacles affecting the exercise of the mandate are addressed.
From Recommendations to Verifiable Results
The next phase requires a follow-up system linking each recommendation to a responsible authority, a deadline, a documented response and evidence of implementation. Such a system helps distinguish recommendations accepted in principle from measures whose implementation has begun and improvements whose continuity has been verified. It also helps identify recurring obstacles involving resources, procedures or inadequate coordination.
Developing a risk-based visiting programme remains a practical priority, covering the earliest stages of detention, juvenile institutions, psychiatric institutions and other places that people may not be free to leave. The programme needs flexibility to respond to urgent information and continuity to allow return visits to verify remedial action. It also requires documenting restrictions on visits and assessing their effect on findings without disclosing information that could endanger individuals. Reviewing the application of safeguards, including legal assistance and detention periods, offers a way to connect fieldwork with judicial files and identify the causes of problems more precisely.
Protection from reprisals is essential to safe and credible monitoring. Detainees who fear punishment may remain silent or provide accounts that do not reflect their experience, while staff members or witnesses may hesitate to disclose important information. Interviews therefore require effective confidentiality, an explanation of the limits governing the use of information, respect for informed consent, and monitoring of developments after visits. Protection also extends to team members and experts working within the mandate. These safeguards must be integrated with secure management of files and referrals so that efforts to protect people do not become an additional source of risk.
The Commission has begun preparing its 2026 annual report, which will present verified findings distinguishing monitoring, complaints, legal assistance, advocacy and training, and report outcomes within the limits of available evidence. Institutional progress in premises, budgets, recruitment and organisation provides an important foundation. The test, however, remains the lives of people in places of deprivation of liberty: do they receive healthcare, access to a lawyer and judicial review? Are the risks of violence, isolation and neglect declining? Do authorities respond to recommendations, and are improvements sustained? Documented answers to these questions will determine whether institutional development has translated into independent and effective prevention capable of identifying risks early and following through on sustainable remedies.
هذه المقالة متاحة أيضًا بـ:
العربية (Arabic)
