{"id":9215,"date":"2026-10-29T20:35:33","date_gmt":"2026-10-29T18:35:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/?p=9215"},"modified":"2026-10-30T04:48:39","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T02:48:39","slug":"advisory-opinion-on-the-government-response-concerning-lebanons-non-accession-to-the-rome-statute-and-the-reversal-of-its-decision-to-accept-the-jurisdiction-of-the-international-criminal-cou","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215","title":{"rendered":"Advisory Opinion on the Government Response concerning Lebanon\u2019s Non-Accession to the Rome Statute and the Reversal of Its Decision to Accept the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Executive Summary<\/strong><\/h1>\n

This advisory opinion, issued by the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, examines the government response dated 18 September 2026 to the parliamentary question concerning Lebanon\u2019s non-accession to the Rome Statute and its reversal of the decision to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over crimes committed on Lebanese territory since 7 October 2023.<\/p>\n

The opinion concludes that the response\u2019s central shortcoming is its failure to identify an effective, operational alternative for accountability. It explains legal avenues, cooperation obligations, and potential financial burdens, but does not adequately explain the failure to activate the Court\u2019s jurisdiction or identify an alternative strategy with measures, responsibilities, resources, and timelines that can be monitored. Nor does it comprehensively weigh the considerations underlying the decision against its effects on victims\u2019 rights and the cost of continued impunity.<\/p>\n

The opinion highlights the lack of clarification regarding the impact of the Trilateral Framework between the United States of America, the State of Israel, and the Republic of Lebanon, particularly paragraph 13 concerning action in international political or legal forums, on Lebanon\u2019s judicial and diplomatic options. It requests an explanation of the Government\u2019s interpretation of this undertaking, whether decisions restricting accountability initiatives have been taken on its basis, and the safeguards preventing harm to victims\u2019 rights or the obstruction of applicable legal obligations, without presuming that the document automatically precludes activation of the Court\u2019s jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

The principal practical gaps include insufficient information about domestic investigations, completed measures and existing obstacles, and the absence of an account of a plan to collect and preserve evidence, particularly remnants of weapons and ammunition, medical and forensic evidence, digital material, and their chain of custody. The response also fails to clarify arrangements for cooperation with the UN assessment mission and follow-up to its report, the position on establishing an independent international investigative mechanism, or the outcomes of judicial cooperation with foreign courts.<\/p>\n

The opinion notes the absence of a comprehensive program to ensure victims and their families access to information, justice, legal assistance, protection, and reparation. It also notes the absence of a stated position on the proposed International Crimes Law and follow-up to the Commission\u2019s recommendations concerning the future international convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. It stresses that humanitarian assistance and reconstruction compensation cannot replace truth-seeking, investigation and the determination of responsibility.<\/p>\n

The opinion distinguishes between shortcomings in the response and an established legal breach. Non-accession to the Rome Statute does not, in itself, constitute an international violation, but it does not exempt the State from its duties to investigate, prosecute where appropriate, and provide remedies under the applicable rules.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Commission recommends a documented supplementary government response and an operational accountability plan setting out the reasons for the decision and the impact of the Trilateral Framework; the status of investigations and evidence-preservation measures; cooperation with UN mechanisms and foreign judicial authorities; safeguards for victims\u2019 rights; and steps to complete the legislative framework. These should specify responsibilities, resources and timelines, with a periodic mechanism for informing Parliament and the public of progress and obstacles. The Commission stresses that the seriousness of government policy must be assessed by the effective measures it produces to secure justice and prevent impunity, whatever option is chosen concerning the Rome Statute.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0 Subject and Foundations of the Opinion and Assessment of the Government Response<\/strong><\/h1>\n

This opinion examines the response issued by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers on 18 September 2026 to the question submitted by MPs Paula Yacoubian, Melhem Khalaf, Ibrahim Mneimneh, Najat Aoun Saliba, Yassine Yassine and Firas Hamdan concerning Lebanon\u2019s non-accession to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Government\u2019s reversal of its decision to accept the Court\u2019s jurisdiction over crimes committed on Lebanese territory since 7 October 2023.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

This opinion falls within the mandate of the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, particularly monitoring Lebanon\u2019s compliance with human rights and international humanitarian law, and providing opinions and advice on legislation, policies and measures relating to their protection and observance.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The opinion concludes that the principal shortcoming is the failure to identify an effective, operational alternative for accountability after reversing the decision to accept the Court\u2019s jurisdiction. The assessment concerns the adequacy of the reasoning and information in the response; its silence alone does not establish that no investigations or actual cooperation exist. The review rests on duties to investigate, provide remedies and protect victims, while distinguishing binding legal rules from guidelines and institutional recommendations.[3]<\/sup><\/a>,[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

1\u00a0 Available Legal Avenues and the Absence of Reasons for Declining Them<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The government response contains important acknowledgments: notably, the absence of an inherent legal impediment to Lebanon\u2019s accession to the Rome Statute, based on an earlier opinion of the Legislation and Consultation Department; the possibility of accepting the Court\u2019s jurisdiction under Article 12(3) independently of accession; and the complementary nature of the Court\u2019s jurisdiction in relation to domestic courts. It also confirms that the Council of Ministers revoked its instruction to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to lodge a declaration accepting jurisdiction before that declaration was actually lodged.<\/p>\n

These acknowledgments are significant because they rule out portraying non-accession or the reversal of acceptance of jurisdiction as the inevitable consequence of a legal obstacle. Instead, they place both decisions within the realm of government choices requiring an explanation of their reasons and effects. Yet the response does not explain the factual and legal considerations that prevented accession or favored reversing acceptance of jurisdiction. Nor does it identify the studies relied upon, the bodies that prepared them, or whether the Government has set a timetable for reconsidering its position.<\/p>\n

Describing the decision as a sovereign choice does not explain the considerations that favored it, how victims\u2019 rights were taken into account, or how opportunities for accountability were assessed. It therefore remains necessary to identify the relevant studies and deliberations, within the limits of lawful disclosure, and explain why the legal tools acknowledged as available in the response were not activated.<\/p>\n

2\u00a0 Accession and Acceptance of Jurisdiction Are Distinct Avenues<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The response distinguishes accession to the Rome Statute from acceptance of the Court\u2019s jurisdiction under Article 12(3), explaining that acceptance does not make Lebanon a State Party but entails obligations to cooperate with the Court in relation to the situation covered by the declaration.[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

An account of cooperation obligations does not replace an explanation of the decision not to lodge the declaration. Acceptance of jurisdiction enables the Court to exercise its authority subject to the Statute\u2019s conditions; it does not automatically open an investigation, lead to charges, or guarantee the arrest of suspects. The procedures for triggering jurisdiction, admissibility, and judicial decisions remain governed by the Statute.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

3\u00a0 Nonselectivity and Complementarity with Domestic Courts<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The response raises the possibility that an investigation could encompass individuals of different nationalities and affiliations. This follows from applying the jurisdictional conditions to the relevant facts and persons, and calls for an affirmation of support for independent investigations regardless of suspects\u2019 identities, while respecting the presumption of innocence and fair trial guarantees. Raising this possibility alone does not establish a government policy to protect any particular party.[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The principle of complementarity does not mean that the mere existence of domestic courts suffices to exclude intervention by the Court. Under the conditions of Article 17, admissibility depends on actual domestic proceedings and on genuine unwillingness or inability to carry them out. This assessment concerns the particular case and cannot be settled by a general declaration of the priority of Lebanese courts.[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

4\u00a0 Financial Burdens and Resources for Justice<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The response provides a detailed estimate of Lebanon\u2019s potential financial contribution if it accedes to the Rome Statute, but does not identify the resources allocated to make domestic accountability effective, including investigations, forensic medicine, specialized weapons expertise, evidence preservation, witness protection and legal assistance for victims.<\/p>\n

Assessing financial burdens requires distinguishing a State Party\u2019s contributions to the Court\u2019s budget from the costs of executing cooperation requests, and both from resources already needed for domestic investigations. These costs should also be weighed against the consequences of lost evidence, unavailable remedies, and recurring violations. The presentation of costs remains incomplete unless it specifies the appropriations with which the Government will support its chosen avenue.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

II\u00a0 Practical Gaps in Ensuring an Effective Alternative for Accountability<\/strong><\/h1>\n

1\u00a0 Absence of a Public Accountability Strategy<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The response does not identify an operational approach that brings together domestic investigation, judicial cooperation, and international support, with responsibilities, resources, timelines, and progress indicators. This leaves unanswered which judicial authority will prepare case files and how it will overcome the obstacles it faces. The Commission has called for activation of the Court\u2019s jurisdiction, credible domestic investigations and support for proceedings before foreign courts, expanding opportunities for justice without placing the burden of initiating them on victims alone.[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

2\u00a0 Failure to Clarify the Impact of the Trilateral Framework on Accountability Options and Victims\u2019 Rights<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The government response does not address the legal, sovereignty-related, and diplomatic implications of the Trilateral Framework between the United States of America, the State of Israel, and the Republic of Lebanon, particularly paragraph 13 on ceasing hostile or adversarial action in international political or legal forums, and the questions this raises about its potential impact on Lebanon\u2019s options for prosecuting international crimes. The response should have clarified the legal nature of this undertaking and the Government\u2019s interpretation of its scope, including whether it considers it a restriction on accession to the Rome Statute or acceptance of the International Criminal Court\u2019s jurisdiction, or on supporting international investigative mechanisms and cooperating with competent judicial authorities. It should also have stated whether it issued any decisions or instructions directing ministries and diplomatic missions to refrain from, or suspend, accountability initiatives, specifying their content and basis if they exist. The Commission has stressed that seeking accountability for perpetrators of international crimes should not be regarded as hostile action, and that political understandings must not be interpreted in ways that diminish victims\u2019 rights or restrict applicable international obligations. The wording of the document alone does not establish that it automatically prevents the Court\u2019s jurisdiction from being activated. However, the absence of any government clarification prevents an assessment of its actual impact on the decision taken and of the existence of safeguards protecting judicial independence and victims\u2019 rights to truth, justice and reparation, and preventing impunity for those potentially responsible for crimes.[11]<\/sup><\/a>,[12]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

3\u00a0 Domestic Investigations and Coordination among Relevant Bodies<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The government response does not set out the number of domestic investigations opened into incidents suspected of constituting international crimes, the nature of those incidents, the judicial authorities handling them, or measures completed and preliminary findings that may be disclosed without compromising investigative confidentiality or the safety of victims and witnesses. Nor does it explain whether a mechanism ensures that every incident is registered and investigated, that similar incidents are linked to identify patterns of violations, and that individual responsibility and potential command responsibility are determined.[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

A distinction must be drawn between the National Committee for International Humanitarian Law, established by Decree No. 4382 of 21 June 2010, which has a government coordination and advisory role, and the Commission\u2019s International Humanitarian Law Committee, which has an independent role in monitoring, documentation, and providing opinions. Through Decision No. 4-3 of 2 April 2026, the Council of Ministers retained the National Committee and affirmed coordination between the two committees. The response does not identify the outcomes of this coordination or its impact on addressing obstacles to accountability.[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Article 16 of the Commission\u2019s Internal Bylaws provides for monitoring, documentation, legislative harmonization, recommendations and coordination in a manner that preserves its independence. Information is requested on the fate of the Commission\u2019s referrals to the authorities and their outcomes, while ensuring the confidentiality of its data and protection of its sources. Its role in supporting justice does not transfer to it the powers of criminal investigation or prosecution.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

4\u00a0 Evidence Collection and Preservation and <\/strong>Follow-Up to the Special Rapporteur\u2019s Recommendations<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The government response does not identify a clear national plan for collecting and preserving evidence of potential international crimes, or standardized procedures for protecting incident sites, conducting inspections and documenting collected material through a chain of custody that allows each item to be tracked from collection to submission before a court. Nor does it identify the bodies responsible, their available resources and expertise, or coordination arrangements among judicial authorities, competent agencies, hospitals, ambulance teams and civil defense.<\/p>\n

This issue takes on added importance in light of Special Rapporteur Morris Tidball-Binz\u2019s visit from 29 September to 10 October 2025. He emphasized evidence preservation and chain of custody, coordination among justice, health and security institutions, family participation, and protection of witnesses and professionals. An account of the measures taken to follow up on these recommendations is missing.[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

For weapons and ammunition evidence, the response should have explained how specialized teams would reach strike sites as soon as safe access became possible, document sites before they were altered, and collect ammunition remnants and fragments through qualified experts. This includes recording the coordinates where items were found, photographing their locations, markings, numbers, and technical characteristics, and linking them to documented damage and injuries from the same incident. Procedures for handling unexploded ordnance and hazardous materials should also have been clarified, protecting personnel and residents while preserving, as far as possible, information of evidential value before items are destroyed for safety reasons.[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Identifying a weapon type or finding its remnants is insufficient. Evidence enabling analysis of how it was used and the context of the attack should also be preserved, including the impact location, extent of destruction, distribution of fragments, timing and accounts of those present. Together, these elements help assess the circumstances of an attack and compliance with the rules of distinction, proportionality and precautions, without inferring legal responsibility from the weapon type alone.<\/p>\n

For medical and forensic evidence, the response should have explained how records of injured and deceased persons, ambulance, examination and surgical reports, radiological images, forensic medical and autopsy reports where performed, biological samples, and projectiles or fragments removed during treatment are preserved. Each item must be linked to the correct case file, with its collection date, receiving entity, and storage conditions documented, while protecting health data and respecting informed consent where required and the relevant judicial procedures.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The response should also state its position on establishing a national institute of forensic medicine with professional independence, equipment, funding, training, and quality assurance. The Special Rapporteur raised this possibility and linked capacity development to the standards of the 2016 Minnesota Protocol.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

For digital and visual evidence, the plan should include preserving photographs and recordings in their original files with metadata, documenting their sources and acquisition dates, creating secure backups and controlling access permissions. Urgent steps should also be taken to obtain CCTV footage, satellite imagery and relevant records before deletion or irretrievable loss, verifying their authenticity rather than relying solely on copies circulated on social media.[20]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The response should also explain how evidence-preservation requirements would be coordinated with rescue operations, body recovery, rubble clearance, and reconstruction, so necessary inspections are conducted and relevant materials preserved without obstructing urgent interventions to protect life. Where access to a site is impossible, the reasons should be documented, available alternative evidence collected, and arrangements made for inspection as soon as the obstacle is removed.<\/p>\n

Evidence preservation is an urgent measure benefiting any subsequent judicial avenue and must not depend on settling the political choice concerning the Court. Where safe access is impossible, obstacles must be documented, alternative evidence collected and inspection arrangements prepared for when they are removed. The response does not establish the extent to which this has been done or the adequacy of the resources allocated.<\/p>\n

5\u00a0 The UN Assessment Mission and the Proposed Independent International Mechanism<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The response does not specify arrangements for cooperation with the assessment mission of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the bodies designated to liaise with it, or how safe access to sites and records and independent, confidential interviews with victims and witnesses will be facilitated. It also omits safeguards for informed consent, data protection and protection of those cooperating from reprisals. The Commission has publicly stressed the importance of distinguishing this mission from the call for an independent investigative mechanism.[21]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

According to the draft, the mission\u2019s announced scope covers incidents since 2 March 2026, whereas the proposed independent mechanism would cover incidents since 7 October 2023. Clarification is required on the mission\u2019s official terms of reference, how it will address incidents predating its temporal scope, and arrangements for preserving the information it collects and making judicial use of information that may be shared. Access to its confidential materials, or their availability for use at the discretion of Lebanese authorities, cannot be presumed.<\/p>\n

The mechanism the Commission seeks is intended to have a dedicated mandate and resources to investigate, preserve evidence, and support accountability case files concerning violations by all parties. It must not be presented as a mechanism already established, or be attributed binding powers before its founding instrument is adopted. The response omits the Government\u2019s position on this proposal, its diplomatic steps to support it, or the reasons for any reservations.<\/p>\n

The officially expected date of the mission\u2019s report, the Government\u2019s position on its publication, and the mechanism for following up on its findings should be specified, without asserting a publication deadline not established by an available official document. A public report is also particularly important in cases concerning captives and missing persons, where the Commission has recommended a separate component for documentation, interviews with families, and identification of obstacles and refusals to cooperate.[22]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The assessment mission and proposed mechanism remain tools for supporting accountability. Their character as international investigations does not, in itself, confer authority to deliver criminal judgments. The practical link between their outputs and competent courts must be explained, respecting their independence and protecting information.<\/p>\n

6\u00a0 International Judicial Cooperation and Cases before Foreign Courts<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The government response does not clarify whether there is a policy for cooperation with foreign judicial authorities that may have lawful jurisdiction over crimes committed in Lebanon. It does not identify procedures for exchanging evidence and information, executing mutual legal assistance requests and letters rogatory, or facilitating testimony and protection for victims and witnesses. Nor does it identify the Lebanese bodies responsible for receiving and following up on these requests, or coordination mechanisms among the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs, judicial authorities, and competent agencies to ensure effective handling without unjustified delay.<\/p>\n

A notable example is the complaint with an application to join proceedings as a civil party filed by Ali Cherri and the International Federation for Human Rights before the specialized French judicial authority on 2 April 2026, concerning the targeting of his Beirut apartment on 26 November 2024 in a strike that killed seven civilians, including his parents. Filing a complaint is a procedural step distinct from opening an investigation or establishing responsibility; no subsequent development that has not been verified should be presumed.[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

According to the Federation\u2019s explanation, the request to investigate the targeting of the apartment relies on its owner Ali Cherri\u2019s French nationality; this case therefore cannot automatically be described as an exercise of universal jurisdiction. The Federation also distinguishes this jurisdictional basis from the killing of his family members, who did not have French nationality. Other foreign proceedings are subject to each State\u2019s jurisdictional rules and procedural conditions.[24]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In practical terms, the response should have addressed the Lebanese authorities\u2019 readiness to execute requests to collect or transfer evidence, provide certified copies of inspection records, medical and forensic reports, and death, ownership, and damage records, and facilitate technical expertise and site visits in accordance with legal procedures. This includes preserving original evidence and documenting its chain of custody, providing necessary translation, and specifying conditions for its use and circulation to preserve its evidential value and the rights of data subjects.<\/p>\n

The response should also identify measures enabling victims and witnesses in Lebanon to participate safely in foreign proceedings, including being heard through legally permitted judicial means, receiving interpretation and appropriate support, and protecting identities and contact details where necessary. The availability of proceedings abroad may have limited impact if rights holders cannot access them, witnesses fear cooperating, or evidence in Lebanon is lost before it is requested.<\/p>\n

Incoming assistance requests and their handling should be presented, to the extent confidentiality permits, identifying legal obstacles and needed resources. Early communication may help preserve evidence at risk of loss where the law permits. However, foreign courts\u2019 jurisdiction may not cover all incidents or victims; it therefore supports the domestic avenue without relieving the State of its duties.<\/p>\n

7\u00a0 Rights of Victims and Their Families<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The response does not set out arrangements enabling victims to learn the truth, follow complaints and investigations, participate in proceedings, and obtain protection and remedies. Families need information concerning their cases, including the fate of missing persons, identification of remains and circumstances of death, with necessary confidentiality preserved. The Basic Principles on Remedy and Reparation provide a reference framework for these rights; they do not, in themselves, create new obligations independently of applicable international rules.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Regarding access to justice, the response does not explain the measures available to remove financial, procedural and geographical barriers to filing and pursuing complaints, particularly for displaced persons, persons with disabilities, children, older persons and those who have lost documents or sources of income. It should set out arrangements for legal assistance, interpretation, and accessible information; facilitate proof of identity and harm; and ensure that complaints can be submitted and pursued without imposing burdens victims cannot bear.<\/p>\n

The response also omits how victims and their families will be guaranteed participation in proceedings in accordance with the law and informed of decisions affecting their rights and available avenues of review. Participation should be meaningful and informed, taking account of the needs of children and survivors of serious injuries and psychological trauma, without turning repeated interviews or uncoordinated evidentiary requests into additional sources of suffering.<\/p>\n

Protection and support require risk assessments, secure communication channels, protection of identities and data where needed, and medical, psychological and social support. Treatment or rehabilitation should not depend on filing a complaint or testifying, and repeated, uncoordinated interviews that compound survivors\u2019 suffering should be avoided.<\/p>\n

As for reparation, the response does not present a clear program specifying beneficiaries, eligibility criteria, application and decision-making procedures, avenues of challenge, and the bodies responsible for financing, implementation and oversight. Depending on the harm and circumstances, it should address restitution, compensation for material and moral damage, medical, psychological, social and vocational rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. Any proposed mechanism should account for the difficulty of proving certain harms in conflict conditions and should not treat lost documents or inability to access an incident site as automatic grounds for excluding rights holders.[26]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Humanitarian assistance and housing and reconstruction compensation do not exhaust these rights. They address basic needs and aspects of harm, but do not replace truth-seeking, investigation or the determination of responsibility. Nor should assistance or compensation be conditional on withdrawing a complaint or relinquishing the pursuit of justice. Delays in identifying those responsible must not postpone urgent support needed by victims and their families.<\/p>\n

Victims should be involved in designing and evaluating reparation programs, with their differing needs taken into account without discrimination.<\/p>\n

8\u00a0 The Proposed International Crimes Law<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The response omits the Government\u2019s position on the proposed International Crimes Law submitted by MPs Michel Moussa and Halime El Kaakour, which the draft states was registered on 2 June 2026 and referred to the Government the following day. Information is requested on the stage reached in its examination, bodies consulted, comments, and deadlines for reaching a position.[27]<\/sup><\/a>,[28]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

The examination must assess the definitions and elements of international crimes; individual responsibility and the responsibility of commanders and other superiors; jurisdiction; limitation periods and immunities; fair trial guarantees; and victim and witness protection. It should assess how the proposal complements the Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, and the expertise, resources, and judicial cooperation needed to implement it. The need to complete the legislative framework does not imply endorsement of all its provisions.[29]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The legal basis for prosecuting incidents predating any new legislation must also be identified, respecting the principle of legality and rules governing temporal application. The anticipated legislation should not be presented as an automatic solution for all past incidents, nor should awaiting it serve as a pretext for suspending investigations into conduct criminalized under existing provisions.<\/p>\n

9\u00a0 The Future Convention on Crimes against Humanity and <\/strong>Follow-up to the Commission\u2019s Opinion<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The response does not explain follow-up to the Commission\u2019s letter to Minister of Justice Adel Nassar, Reference No. 3\/26, dated 13 February 2026, concerning support for adopting an international convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. According to the draft, the letter called for a unified national position, active participation, submission of proposals within announced deadlines, legislative harmonization and stronger victims\u2019 rights. This is consistent with the Commission\u2019s publicly stated position since 12 September 2024.[30]<\/sup><\/a>,[31]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Through resolution 79\/122 of 4 December 2024, the General Assembly decided to convene a conference of plenipotentiaries in 2028 and 2029. The Preparatory Committee\u2019s first session took place from 19 to 30 January 2026; its second was scheduled for 12 to 15 April 2027, and governments were invited to submit amendment proposals by 30 April 2026. The clarification sought therefore concerns actual preparatory measures and participation that can be documented.[32]<\/sup><\/a>,[33]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Information is requested on the disposition of the Commission\u2019s recommendations, which were referred to the relevant bodies, whether they were adopted or not adopted and why, and the Lebanese delegation\u2019s participation, proposals and negotiating instructions. This includes consulting the judiciary, the two bar associations, and specialists, and linking the international process to domestic reform without making investigations or evidence preservation contingent on the conclusion of negotiations.<\/p>\n

III\u00a0 Legal Violations and Concerns and the Limits of Conclusions That May Be Drawn<\/strong><\/h1>\n

1\u00a0 The Duty to Investigate Is Independent of Accession<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Non-accession to the Rome Statute does not, in itself, constitute an international violation. However, customary Rule 158 establishes the duty to investigate war crimes allegedly committed on a State\u2019s territory or by its nationals or armed forces, as well as other war crimes over which it has jurisdiction, and, where appropriate, to prosecute suspects. An unjustified failure to discharge this duty may constitute a separate breach where its elements are established.[34]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

2\u00a0 Sovereignty Does Not Displace Existing Obligations<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The State chooses accountability measures within its applicable obligations. Leaving violations of the right to life without effective investigation and a remedy raises concerns distinct from the lawfulness of choosing not to accede. Determining State responsibility in a particular incident requires verification of its jurisdiction, available measures and measures taken, and actual obstacles.[35]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

3\u00a0 Equality<\/strong>, Judicial Independence and Safeguards for Accused Persons<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Any intervention to shield a category of persons from investigation because of their affiliation, or to direct prosecutions selectively, may undermine equality before the law and judicial independence. The response alone does not establish that such intervention occurred. Nor does the pursuit of accountability permit disregarding the presumption of innocence or guarantees of defense and fair trial.[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

4\u00a0 Effective Investigation Remedies and Evidence Preservation<\/strong><\/h2>\n

An unjustified failure to take reasonable, available measures to preserve evidence or enable victims to obtain remedies may breach relevant obligations, depending on the facts and applicable rules. Establishing such a breach requires examination of measures implemented, reasons for delay, resources and access possibilities; the absence of an account in the response cannot replace that verification.[37]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

5\u00a0 Legality and the Temporal Application of Criminal Law<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Addressing legislative gaps requires respecting the prohibition on conviction for conduct that was not criminal under national or international law when committed, and on imposing a heavier penalty, while considering Article 15 in its entirety and determining its application in the Lebanese system. Conduct criminalized at the time it occurred may still be investigated under applicable law, even without a comprehensive International Crimes Law.[38]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

6\u00a0 Parliamentary Oversight and Adequacy of the Answer<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Insufficient information and reasoning limit Parliament\u2019s ability to assess government policy. However, a definitive finding of a specific procedural violation of the rules governing answers to parliamentary questions requires examination of procedural provisions, the original question and response, and the record of referrals and deadlines. This issue cannot be resolved on the basis of the draft alone.<\/p>\n

IV\u00a0 Clarifications and Measures Required in a Supplementary Government Response<\/strong><\/h1>\n

The Commission recommends a supplementary government response providing specific information on decisions and measures taken and planned to ensure accountability, accompanied by documents and data that may be disclosed, while respecting judicial independence, investigative confidentiality and the protection of victims and witnesses. The response should address the following matters:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Reasons for the position on the International Criminal Court\u2019s jurisdiction: Set out the factual and legal reasons for the decision, the studies and consultations relied upon, and the conditions and timelines for reconsideration, both regarding acceptance of the Court\u2019s jurisdiction and accession to the Rome Statute.<\/li>\n
  2. Impact of the Trilateral Framework on accountability options: Clarify the document\u2019s legal nature and the Government\u2019s interpretation of the scope of the undertaking in paragraph 13, including whether it relied upon it in determining its position on the Court\u2019s jurisdiction or restricting judicial and diplomatic initiatives supporting accountability. This should include any decisions or instructions issued in this regard, if any, and safeguards to prevent interpretations or application that obstruct applicable international obligations, undermine judicial independence and victims\u2019 rights, or result in impunity for those potentially responsible for international crimes.<\/li>\n
  3. Operational accountability plan: Identify the domestic and international avenues adopted and how they complement each other, the bodies responsible for implementing relevant measures, allocated resources, timelines and indicators for measuring progress.<\/li>\n
  4. Domestic investigations and institutional coordination: Provide an aggregate account of incidents under investigation, measures completed, existing obstacles, and steps to address them. Explain the mechanism for following up the Commission\u2019s referrals and the outcomes of coordination between the National Committee for International Humanitarian Law and the Commission\u2019s International Humanitarian Law Committee, preserving the Commission\u2019s independence and the powers of judicial authorities.<\/li>\n
  5. Evidence collection and preservation and stronger technical capacity: Identify protocols for protecting incident sites; preserving weapons and ammunition evidence, medical and forensic evidence, and digital materials; ensuring chain-of-custody integrity and secure storage; available resources and expertise; and the plan to follow up the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.<\/li>\n
  6. Cooperation with the UN assessment mission: Clarify its terms of reference and cooperation arrangements, the officially expected date of its report, the Government\u2019s position on publication and follow-up to its findings and recommendations, how information that may be shared can be used judicially, and how incidents predating its temporal scope will be investigated.<\/li>\n
  7. Position on establishing an independent international investigative mechanism: Provide a reasoned government position on the proposal, identify diplomatic steps taken to support it or any reservations, and specify the alternative proposed by the Government to achieve the purposes of investigation, evidence preservation and support for prosecutions.<\/li>\n
  8. International judicial cooperation: Present the outcomes of cooperation and disclosable mutual legal assistance requests and their handling; arrangements for exchanging evidence and facilitating safe participation by victims and witnesses; legal and practical obstacles; and measures taken to overcome them.<\/li>\n
  9. Rights of victims and their families: Establish a program ensuring access to justice, information, legal assistance, protection, support and reparation. Identify responsible bodies, financing, eligibility criteria, review and challenge procedures, and ensure victims\u2019 participation in its design and evaluation without requiring them to relinquish their rights in exchange for assistance or compensation.<\/li>\n
  10. Completing the legislative framework and following up on the Commission\u2019s recommendations: Identify the stage reached in examining the proposed International Crimes Law, the Government\u2019s comments and deadline for determining its position, follow-up to the Commission\u2019s Letter No. 3\/26 concerning the future international convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, and Lebanon\u2019s contributions to its preparatory and negotiating process.<\/li>\n
  11. Follow-up and disclosure: Set a date for submitting the supplementary response and adopt a periodic mechanism to inform Parliament and the public of progress, existing obstacles and corrective measures, within the limits necessary to protect investigations and the persons concerned.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Commission stresses that the seriousness of government policy is measured by the effective investigations and measures it produces to preserve evidence, support prosecutions and guarantee victims\u2019 rights within a plan that can be implemented and monitored. Choosing any domestic or international avenue does not remove the need to assess its effectiveness and address its limitations. Nor does a position on the Rome Statute, or any political understanding, justify obstructing applicable legal obligations concerning accountability and the fight against impunity.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    [1]<\/sup><\/a> Republic of Lebanon, Presidency of the Council of Ministers, \u201cGovernment response to the parliamentary question concerning Lebanon\u2019s non-accession to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Government\u2019s reversal of acceptance of the Court\u2019s jurisdiction over Israeli crimes in Lebanon since 7 October 2023\u201d, 18 September 2026. Copy published on the website of the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/The-Lebanese-governments-response-to-the-parliamentary-inquiry-regarding-the-International-Criminal-Court.pdf.<\/p>\n

    [2]<\/sup><\/a> Republic of Lebanon, Law No. 62 of 27 October 2016, as amended, establishing the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, particularly Article 15. Text published on the Commission\u2019s website: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/law62.<\/p>\n

    [3]<\/sup><\/a> International Committee of the Red Cross, Customary International Humanitarian Law Database, Rule 158, Prosecution of War Crimes. Available at: https:\/\/ihl-databases.icrc.org\/en\/customary-ihl\/v1\/rule158.<\/p>\n

    [4]<\/sup><\/a> United Nations General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, resolution 2200 A (XXI), 16 December 1966; Articles 2(3) and 6. Text published by OHCHR: https:\/\/2covenants.ohchr.org\/About-ICCPR.html.<\/p>\n

    [5]<\/sup><\/a> United Nations, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted on 17 July 1998. Text published by the Office of Legal Affairs; Articles 12(3) and 125, and Part 9 on cooperation. Available at: https:\/\/legal.un.org\/icc\/statute\/99_corr\/cstatute.htm.<\/p>\n

    [6]<\/sup><\/a> United Nations, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted on 17 July 1998. Text published by the Office of Legal Affairs; Articles 13, 15, 17 and 53. Available at: https:\/\/legal.un.org\/icc\/statute\/99_corr\/cstatute.htm.<\/p>\n

    [7]<\/sup><\/a> United Nations, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted on 17 July 1998. Text published by the Office of Legal Affairs; Articles 12, 25, 27, 66 and 67. Available at: https:\/\/legal.un.org\/icc\/statute\/99_corr\/cstatute.htm.<\/p>\n

    [8]<\/sup><\/a> United Nations, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted on 17 July 1998. Text published by the Office of Legal Affairs; Article 17. Available at: https:\/\/legal.un.org\/icc\/statute\/99_corr\/cstatute.htm.<\/p>\n

    [9]<\/sup><\/a> United Nations, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted on 17 July 1998. Text published by the Office of Legal Affairs; Articles 100, 115 and 117 on costs of cooperation, financing of the Court and assessment of contributions. Available at: https:\/\/legal.un.org\/icc\/statute\/99_corr\/cstatute.htm.<\/p>\n

    [10]<\/sup><\/a> National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, \u201cTowards International Accountability in Lebanon: Documenting Grave Violations and Activating Justice Mechanisms\u201d, 10 April 2026, section on the responsibilities of the Lebanese State and recommendations. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/archives\/6505.<\/p>\n

    [11]<\/sup><\/a> United States Department of State, \u201cTrilateral Framework Between the United States of America, the State of Israel, and the Republic of Lebanon\u201d, 26 June 2026, paragraph 13. Available at: https:\/\/www.state.gov\/releases\/office-of-the-spokesperson\/2026\/06\/trilateral-framework-between-the-united-states-of-america-the-state-of-israel-and-the-republic-of-lebanon\/.<\/p>\n

    [12]<\/sup><\/a> National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, \u201cNational Human Rights Commission: No Political Understandings May Restrict Lebanon\u2019s Right to Prosecute Perpetrators of War Crimes or Obstruct Legal and Diplomatic Action to Confront Occupation; We Reject Any Bargaining over the Rights of Lebanese Captives\u201d, 27 June 2026, particularly the Commission\u2019s position on interpreting paragraph 13 and ensuring that victims\u2019 rights and accountability processes remain independent of political understandings. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/archives\/7622. See also: National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, \u201cThe Guardian Highlights the National Human Rights Commission\u2019s Position on the Lebanese\u2013Israeli Agreement and Victims\u2019 Right to Justice\u201d, 28 June 2026, particularly the account of the Commission\u2019s position on paragraph 13 and the concluding affirmation of victims\u2019 rights. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/archives\/7659.<\/p>\n

    [13]<\/sup><\/a> National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Annual Report 2025, published on 6 April 2026, section on investigating conflict-related violations and the Special Rapporteur\u2019s recommendations. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/archives\/6386.<\/p>\n

    [14]<\/sup><\/a> Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Decision No. 4-3, minutes of meeting No. 57 held on 2 April 2026, concerning coordination between the Commission and the National Committee for International Humanitarian Law, published on the Commission\u2019s website on 17 April 2026. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/archives\/6661.<\/p>\n

    [15]<\/sup><\/a> National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Internal Bylaws issued by Decree No. 1762 of 7 November 2025, Article 16, functions of the International Humanitarian Law Committee and independence in coordination. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/internal-bylaw.<\/p>\n

    [16]<\/sup><\/a> National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, \u201cLebanon\u2019s National Human Rights Commission Engages with a UN Expert on the Right to Life\u201d, 7 October 2025, including an account of the concluding statement issued on 10 October 2025. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/archives\/3567.<\/p>\n

    [17]<\/sup><\/a> Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), New York and Geneva, 2017, investigation procedures, crime scenes and forensic examination; Section IV, Conduct of Investigations, particularly the handling of evidence and crime scenes. Available at: https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/sites\/default\/files\/Documents\/Publications\/MinnesotaProtocol.pdf.<\/p>\n

    [18]<\/sup><\/a> Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), New York and Geneva, 2017, investigation procedures, crime scenes and forensic examination; Sections IV and V, forensic investigation and post-mortem examination. Available at: https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/sites\/default\/files\/Documents\/Publications\/MinnesotaProtocol.pdf.<\/p>\n

    [19]<\/sup><\/a> National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, \u201cLebanon\u2019s National Human Rights Commission Engages with a UN Expert on the Right to Life\u201d, 7 October 2025, including an account of the concluding statement issued on 10 October 2025. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/archives\/3567.<\/p>\n

    [20]<\/sup><\/a> Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations, Geneva, United Nations, 2022, document HR\/PUB\/20\/2. Official record available at: https:\/\/searchlibrary.ohchr.org\/record\/30334.<\/p>\n

    [21]<\/sup><\/a> National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, \u201cThe Commission Launches the Monthly Forum \u2018Connecting for Rights\u2019 and Calls for Stronger Accountability Mechanisms for Violations Committed in Lebanon\u201d, 12 June 2026, distinction between the assessment mission and the proposed independent mechanism. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/archives\/7473.<\/p>\n

    [22]<\/sup><\/a> National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, \u201cThe Legal Status of Lebanese Captives, Detainees, Forcibly Disappeared and Missing Persons Held by Israel\u201d, 2026, recommendations on documentation, forensic medicine and a public report. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/archives\/8449.<\/p>\n

    [23]<\/sup><\/a> International Federation for Human Rights, \u201cIsraeli bombing in Beirut: Franco-Lebanese artist Ali Cherri and FIDH file a complaint in France for war crimes\u201d, press release, 2 April 2026. Available at: https:\/\/www.fidh.org\/en\/region\/north-africa-middle-east\/lebanon\/israeli-bombing-in-beirut-franco-lebanese-artist-ali-cherri-and-fidh.<\/p>\n

    [24]<\/sup><\/a> International Federation for Human Rights, \u201cIsraeli bombing in Beirut: Q&A on the war crimes complaint filed in France by Franco-Lebanese artist Ali Cherri and FIDH\u201d, 2 April 2026, sections on the jurisdictional basis and next steps. Available at: https:\/\/www.fidh.org\/en\/region\/north-africa-middle-east\/lebanon\/israeli-bombing-in-beirut-q-a-on-the-war-crimes-complaint-filed-in.<\/p>\n

    [25]<\/sup><\/a> United Nations General Assembly, resolution 60\/147, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, 16 December 2005, annex, paragraphs 8\u201323; preamble to the resolution and paragraphs 10\u201314. Available at: https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/sites\/default\/files\/2021-08\/N0549642.pdf.<\/p>\n

    [26]<\/sup><\/a> United Nations General Assembly, resolution 60\/147, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, 16 December 2005, annex, paragraphs 8\u201323; paragraphs 15\u201323 on forms of reparation. Available at: https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/sites\/default\/files\/2021-08\/N0549642.pdf.<\/p>\n

    [27]<\/sup><\/a> Proposed International Crimes Law submitted by MPs Michel Moussa and Halime El Kaakour, registered on 2 June 2026 and referred to the Government on 3 June 2026. The attached materials did not include a copy of the proposal or the referral record allowing independent verification of these dates. The Commission\u2019s position supporting legislation is documented in the publication cited in the following footnote.<\/p>\n

    [28]<\/sup><\/a> National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, \u201cLaunch of the \u2018One Hundred Lawsuits in One Hundred Days\u2019 Campaign from Beirut to Strengthen Accountability for International Crimes Committed in Lebanon\u201d, 2026, call to adopt the International Crimes Law. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/archives\/7665.<\/p>\n

    [29]<\/sup><\/a> National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, \u201cScope of Responsibility and International Obligations in the Context of the Armed Conflict in Lebanon\u201d, prepared by Bassam Al Kantar, 18 April 2026. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/archives\/6577.<\/p>\n

    [30]<\/sup><\/a> National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Letter to Minister of Justice Adel Nassar, \u201cSupporting the Process of Adopting the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity\u201d, Reference No. 3\/26, 13 February 2026, held in the Commission\u2019s records.<\/p>\n

    [31]<\/sup><\/a> National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, \u201cThe Commission Proposes That the Lebanese Government Support a Draft International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity\u201d, 12 September 2024. Available at: https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/archives\/2259.<\/p>\n

    [32]<\/sup><\/a> United Nations, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity, overview of resolution 79\/122 of 4 December 2024 and conference dates. Available at: https:\/\/legal.un.org\/diplomaticconferences\/cah\/.<\/p>\n

    [33]<\/sup><\/a> United Nations, Office of Legal Affairs, Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity, dates adopted pursuant to resolution 79\/122 and procedural decision 80\/521. Available at: https:\/\/legal.un.org\/diplomaticconferences\/cah\/prepcom.shtml.<\/p>\n

    [34]<\/sup><\/a> International Committee of the Red Cross, Customary International Humanitarian Law Database, Rule 158, Prosecution of War Crimes. Available at: https:\/\/ihl-databases.icrc.org\/en\/customary-ihl\/v1\/rule158.<\/p>\n

    [35]<\/sup><\/a> United Nations General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, resolution 2200 A (XXI), 16 December 1966; Articles 2(3) and 6. Text published by OHCHR: https:\/\/2covenants.ohchr.org\/About-ICCPR.html.<\/p>\n

    [36]<\/sup><\/a> United Nations General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, resolution 2200 A (XXI), 16 December 1966; Articles 14 and 26. Text published by OHCHR: https:\/\/2covenants.ohchr.org\/About-ICCPR.html.<\/p>\n

    [37]<\/sup><\/a> Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), New York and Geneva, 2017, investigation procedures, crime scenes and forensic examination; standards of effective investigation and evidence preservation. Available at: https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/sites\/default\/files\/Documents\/Publications\/MinnesotaProtocol.pdf.<\/p>\n

    [38]<\/sup><\/a> United Nations General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, resolution 2200 A (XXI), 16 December 1966; both paragraphs of Article 15. Text published by OHCHR: https:\/\/2covenants.ohchr.org\/About-ICCPR.html.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Executive Summary This advisory opinion, issued by the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, examines the government response dated 18 September 2026 to the parliamentary question concerning Lebanon\u2019s non-accession to the Rome Statute and its reversal of the decision to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9210,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[257],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9215","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-advisory-opinions"],"yoast_head":"\nAdvisory Opinion on the Government Response concerning Lebanon\u2019s Non-Accession to the Rome Statute and the Reversal of Its Decision to Accept the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court | National Human Rights Commission - Lebanon<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Advisory Opinion on the Government Response concerning Lebanon\u2019s Non-Accession to the Rome Statute and the Reversal of Its Decision to Accept the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court | National Human Rights Commission - Lebanon\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Executive Summary This advisory opinion, issued by the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, examines the government response dated 18 September 2026 to the parliamentary question concerning Lebanon\u2019s non-accession to the Rome Statute and its reversal of the decision to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"National Human Rights Commission - Lebanon\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/NHRCLB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/nhrclb\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-10-29T18:35:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-10-30T02:48:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/53316295835_875fc5cd25_k.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2048\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1366\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"NHRCLB\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@nhrclb\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@nhrclb\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"NHRCLB\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"52 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/archives\\\/9215#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/archives\\\/9215\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"NHRCLB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/bcb35210564d89b3fafa40dbc39320bf\"},\"headline\":\"Advisory Opinion on the Government Response concerning Lebanon\u2019s Non-Accession to the Rome Statute and the Reversal of Its Decision to Accept the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-29T18:35:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-30T02:48:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/archives\\\/9215\"},\"wordCount\":7127,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/archives\\\/9215#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/53316295835_875fc5cd25_k.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Advisory Opinions\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/archives\\\/9215\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/archives\\\/9215\",\"name\":\"Advisory Opinion on the Government Response concerning Lebanon\u2019s Non-Accession to the Rome Statute and the Reversal of Its Decision to Accept the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court | National Human Rights Commission - Lebanon\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/archives\\\/9215#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/archives\\\/9215#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/53316295835_875fc5cd25_k.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-29T18:35:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-30T02:48:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/archives\\\/9215#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/archives\\\/9215\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/archives\\\/9215#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/53316295835_875fc5cd25_k.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/53316295835_875fc5cd25_k.jpg\",\"width\":2048,\"height\":1366},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/archives\\\/9215#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"\u0627\u0644\u0631\u0626\u064a\u0633\u064a\u0629\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a3%d9%88%d9%84%d9%89\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Advisory Opinion on the Government Response concerning Lebanon\u2019s Non-Accession to the Rome Statute and the Reversal of Its Decision to Accept the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\",\"name\":\"\u0627\u0644\u0647\u064a\u0626\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0644\u062d\u0642\u0648\u0642 \u0627\u0644\u0625\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0646 - \u0644\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0646\",\"description\":\"\u0645\u0624\u0633\u0633\u0629 \u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0633\u062a\u0642\u0644\u0629 \u0644\u062d\u0645\u0627\u064a\u0629 \u0648\u062a\u0639\u0632\u064a\u0632 \u062d\u0642\u0648\u0642 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0646 \u0648\u0627\u0644\u0648\u0642\u0627\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628 \u0645\u0646\u0634\u0627\u0629 \u0628\u0645\u0648\u062c\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0627\u0646\u0648\u0646 62\\\/ 2016\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"\u0627\u0644\u0647\u064a\u0626\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0644\u062d\u0642\u0648\u0642 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u062a\u0636\u0645\u0646\u0629 \u0644\u062c\u0646\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0642\u0627\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628 - \u0627\u0644\u062c\u0645\u0647\u0648\u0631\u064a\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0646\u064a\u0629\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en#organization\",\"name\":\"\u0627\u0644\u0647\u064a\u0626\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0644\u062d\u0642\u0648\u0642 \u0627\u0644\u0625\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u062a\u0636\u0645\u0646\u0629 \u0644\u062c\u0646\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0642\u0627\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628 - \u0644\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0646\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/01\\\/NHRC-CPT-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/01\\\/NHRC-CPT-Logo.png\",\"width\":1017,\"height\":761,\"caption\":\"\u0627\u0644\u0647\u064a\u0626\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0644\u062d\u0642\u0648\u0642 \u0627\u0644\u0625\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u062a\u0636\u0645\u0646\u0629 \u0644\u062c\u0646\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0642\u0627\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628 - \u0644\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0646\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/NHRCLB\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/nhrclb\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/nhrc_lb\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@lebanonsnhrccpt2364\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.flickr.com\\\/photos\\\/145354751@N08\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/bcb35210564d89b3fafa40dbc39320bf\",\"name\":\"NHRCLB\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/df8370662af0ee03068dbccb0dedb52c94e2b06a615ffac8e71258ebe6faa37d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/df8370662af0ee03068dbccb0dedb52c94e2b06a615ffac8e71258ebe6faa37d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/df8370662af0ee03068dbccb0dedb52c94e2b06a615ffac8e71258ebe6faa37d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"NHRCLB\"},\"description\":\"\u0645\u0624\u0633\u0633\u0629 \u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0633\u062a\u0642\u0644\u0629 \u0645\u0646\u0634\u0623\u0629 \u0628\u0645\u0648\u062c\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0627\u0646\u0648\u0646 62\\\/ 2016\u060c \u062a\u062a\u0636\u0645\u0646 \u0622\u0644\u064a\u0629 \u0648\u0642\u0627\u0626\u064a\u0629 \u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0644\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628 (\u0644\u062c\u0646\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0642\u0627\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628) \u0639\u0645\u0644\u0627\u064b \u0628\u0623\u062d\u0643\u0627\u0645 \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0627\u0646\u0648\u0646 \u0631\u0642\u0645 12\\\/ 2008 (\u0627\u0644\u0645\u0635\u0627\u062f\u0642\u0629 \u0639\u0644\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0628\u0631\u0648\u062a\u0648\u0643\u0648\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u062e\u062a\u064a\u0627\u0631\u064a \u0644\u0627\u062a\u0641\u0627\u0642\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0646\u0627\u0647\u0636\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628). An independent national institution established under Law No. 62\\\/2016, which includes a National Preventive Mechanism against torture (the Committee for the Prevention of Torture), in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 12\\\/2008 (ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture). Une institution nationale ind\u00e9pendante \u00e9tablie en vertu de la loi n\u00b0 62\\\/2016, qui comprend un m\u00e9canisme national de pr\u00e9vention de la torture (le Comit\u00e9 pour la pr\u00e9vention de la torture), conform\u00e9ment aux dispositions de la loi n\u00b0 12\\\/2008 (ratifiant le Protocole facultatif se rapportant \u00e0 la Convention contre la torture).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/nhrclb\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/nhrc_lb\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/nhrclb\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/nhrclb\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/channel\\\/UCDxi0DJVqYSNfc06GleK8ig\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tumblr.com\\\/nhrclb\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/nhrclb.org\\\/en\\\/archives\\\/author\\\/admin2024\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Advisory Opinion on the Government Response concerning Lebanon\u2019s Non-Accession to the Rome Statute and the Reversal of Its Decision to Accept the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court | National Human Rights Commission - Lebanon","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Advisory Opinion on the Government Response concerning Lebanon\u2019s Non-Accession to the Rome Statute and the Reversal of Its Decision to Accept the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court | National Human Rights Commission - Lebanon","og_description":"Executive Summary This advisory opinion, issued by the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, examines the government response dated 18 September 2026 to the parliamentary question concerning Lebanon\u2019s non-accession to the Rome Statute and its reversal of the decision to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over […]","og_url":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215","og_site_name":"National Human Rights Commission - Lebanon","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/NHRCLB","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/nhrclb\/","article_published_time":"2026-10-29T18:35:33+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-10-30T02:48:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2048,"height":1366,"url":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/53316295835_875fc5cd25_k.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"NHRCLB","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@nhrclb","twitter_site":"@nhrclb","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"NHRCLB","Est. reading time":"52 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215"},"author":{"name":"NHRCLB","@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en#\/schema\/person\/bcb35210564d89b3fafa40dbc39320bf"},"headline":"Advisory Opinion on the Government Response concerning Lebanon\u2019s Non-Accession to the Rome Statute and the Reversal of Its Decision to Accept the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court","datePublished":"2026-10-29T18:35:33+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-30T02:48:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215"},"wordCount":7127,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/53316295835_875fc5cd25_k.jpg","articleSection":["Advisory Opinions"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215","url":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215","name":"Advisory Opinion on the Government Response concerning Lebanon\u2019s Non-Accession to the Rome Statute and the Reversal of Its Decision to Accept the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court | National Human Rights Commission - Lebanon","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/53316295835_875fc5cd25_k.jpg","datePublished":"2026-10-29T18:35:33+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-30T02:48:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/53316295835_875fc5cd25_k.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/53316295835_875fc5cd25_k.jpg","width":2048,"height":1366},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/9215#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"\u0627\u0644\u0631\u0626\u064a\u0633\u064a\u0629","item":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a3%d9%88%d9%84%d9%89"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Advisory Opinion on the Government Response concerning Lebanon\u2019s Non-Accession to the Rome Statute and the Reversal of Its Decision to Accept the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en#website","url":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en","name":"\u0627\u0644\u0647\u064a\u0626\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0644\u062d\u0642\u0648\u0642 \u0627\u0644\u0625\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0646 - \u0644\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0646","description":"\u0645\u0624\u0633\u0633\u0629 \u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0633\u062a\u0642\u0644\u0629 \u0644\u062d\u0645\u0627\u064a\u0629 \u0648\u062a\u0639\u0632\u064a\u0632 \u062d\u0642\u0648\u0642 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0646 \u0648\u0627\u0644\u0648\u0642\u0627\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628 \u0645\u0646\u0634\u0627\u0629 \u0628\u0645\u0648\u062c\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0627\u0646\u0648\u0646 62\/ 2016","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en#organization"},"alternateName":"\u0627\u0644\u0647\u064a\u0626\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0644\u062d\u0642\u0648\u0642 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u062a\u0636\u0645\u0646\u0629 \u0644\u062c\u0646\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0642\u0627\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628 - \u0627\u0644\u062c\u0645\u0647\u0648\u0631\u064a\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0644\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0646\u064a\u0629","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en#organization","name":"\u0627\u0644\u0647\u064a\u0626\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0644\u062d\u0642\u0648\u0642 \u0627\u0644\u0625\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u062a\u0636\u0645\u0646\u0629 \u0644\u062c\u0646\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0642\u0627\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628 - \u0644\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0646","url":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/NHRC-CPT-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/NHRC-CPT-Logo.png","width":1017,"height":761,"caption":"\u0627\u0644\u0647\u064a\u0626\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0644\u062d\u0642\u0648\u0642 \u0627\u0644\u0625\u0646\u0633\u0627\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0645\u062a\u0636\u0645\u0646\u0629 \u0644\u062c\u0646\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0642\u0627\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628 - \u0644\u0628\u0646\u0627\u0646"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/NHRCLB","https:\/\/x.com\/nhrclb","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/nhrc_lb","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@lebanonsnhrccpt2364","https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/145354751@N08"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en#\/schema\/person\/bcb35210564d89b3fafa40dbc39320bf","name":"NHRCLB","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/df8370662af0ee03068dbccb0dedb52c94e2b06a615ffac8e71258ebe6faa37d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/df8370662af0ee03068dbccb0dedb52c94e2b06a615ffac8e71258ebe6faa37d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/df8370662af0ee03068dbccb0dedb52c94e2b06a615ffac8e71258ebe6faa37d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"NHRCLB"},"description":"\u0645\u0624\u0633\u0633\u0629 \u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0633\u062a\u0642\u0644\u0629 \u0645\u0646\u0634\u0623\u0629 \u0628\u0645\u0648\u062c\u0628 \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0627\u0646\u0648\u0646 62\/ 2016\u060c \u062a\u062a\u0636\u0645\u0646 \u0622\u0644\u064a\u0629 \u0648\u0642\u0627\u0626\u064a\u0629 \u0648\u0637\u0646\u064a\u0629 \u0644\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628 (\u0644\u062c\u0646\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u0648\u0642\u0627\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628) \u0639\u0645\u0644\u0627\u064b \u0628\u0623\u062d\u0643\u0627\u0645 \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0627\u0646\u0648\u0646 \u0631\u0642\u0645 12\/ 2008 (\u0627\u0644\u0645\u0635\u0627\u062f\u0642\u0629 \u0639\u0644\u0649 \u0627\u0644\u0628\u0631\u0648\u062a\u0648\u0643\u0648\u0644 \u0627\u0644\u0627\u062e\u062a\u064a\u0627\u0631\u064a \u0644\u0627\u062a\u0641\u0627\u0642\u064a\u0629 \u0645\u0646\u0627\u0647\u0636\u0629 \u0627\u0644\u062a\u0639\u0630\u064a\u0628). An independent national institution established under Law No. 62\/2016, which includes a National Preventive Mechanism against torture (the Committee for the Prevention of Torture), in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 12\/2008 (ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture). Une institution nationale ind\u00e9pendante \u00e9tablie en vertu de la loi n\u00b0 62\/2016, qui comprend un m\u00e9canisme national de pr\u00e9vention de la torture (le Comit\u00e9 pour la pr\u00e9vention de la torture), conform\u00e9ment aux dispositions de la loi n\u00b0 12\/2008 (ratifiant le Protocole facultatif se rapportant \u00e0 la Convention contre la torture).","sameAs":["https:\/\/nhrclb.org","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/nhrclb\/","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/nhrc_lb","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/nhrclb","https:\/\/x.com\/nhrclb","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCDxi0DJVqYSNfc06GleK8ig","https:\/\/www.tumblr.com\/nhrclb"],"url":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/archives\/author\/admin2024"}]}},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9215","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9215"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9215\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9218,"href":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9215\/revisions\/9218"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9210"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9215"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9215"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nhrclb.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}