By Bassam Al Kantar
Amid the escalating Israeli aggression against Lebanon, the documentation of human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law emerges as a decisive entry point for any serious path toward justice. There can be no accountability without evidence, and no evidence without reliable and independent mechanisms to collect, analyze, and preserve it. In the Lebanese context, this issue takes on heightened importance, not only due to the complexity of the political and security landscape, but also because of the multiplicity of institutional frameworks concerned with international humanitarian law, foremost among them the National Human Rights Commission, including the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, and the National Committee for International Humanitarian Law.
In strengthening the national accountability system and linking it to international mechanisms, a set of strategic steps must be urgently and coherently undertaken by the Lebanese state. First, accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, as a preliminary step toward full accession, would enable the prosecution of the most serious international crimes when this proves impossible at the national level, and would enhance victims’ confidence in the prospects of justice. Second, finalizing and adopting national legislation criminalizing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, in line with Lebanon’s international obligations, would establish a clear legal framework allowing domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction, including on the basis of universal jurisdiction where appropriate. Third, providing full support to national judicial investigations, in terms of resources, protection, and institutional cooperation, while guaranteeing their complete independence from any political or security interference, would strengthen their effectiveness and reinforce public trust.
Taken together, these measures do not merely respond to international legal obligations; they constitute a fundamental pillar for building a justice system capable of breaking the cycle of impunity and consolidating the rule of law.
These measures, taken together, alongside the establishment of a specialized unit within the National Human Rights Commission tasked with documenting serious violations of international humanitarian law committed on Lebanese territory, developing professional methodologies for the collection, analysis, and preservation of evidence, and creating a comprehensive and unified national registry of killings, injuries, and other harm suffered by civilians, thereby forming a reliable database to support both national and international investigations, do not merely constitute a response to international legal obligations. Rather, they represent a fundamental pillar for building a justice system capable of breaking the cycle of impunity and consolidating the rule of law.
At the same time, this approach raises a precise legal and functional challenge, namely the need to clearly define mandates and prevent overlap between them, in a manner that ensures effective performance while safeguarding the independence of each body. From this perspective, a careful analysis is required to demonstrate that documenting violations and preserving evidence is an inherent mandate of the National Human Rights Commission, while the role of the National Committee for International Humanitarian Law remains limited to advisory, coordinative, and legislative functions.
Documenting violations is not merely an administrative or technical activity in the narrow sense; rather, it is a complex legal process that forms the foundation for any subsequent judicial proceedings. The evidence collected, whether victim and witness testimonies, digital materials, or medical reports, must be obtained in accordance with rigorous standards that guarantee its integrity and admissibility before courts. This is affirmed by the rules of international humanitarian law, in particular the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, which require states not only to criminalize grave breaches but also to investigate and prosecute those responsible, or extradite them.
However, these obligations, despite their importance, remain ineffective unless supported by national mechanisms capable of translating them into practice. This is where the concept of an “enabling environment for criminal justice” becomes critical, encompassing institutions with clearly defined mandates, independent investigative bodies, and effective procedures for evidence preservation. International reference frameworks, particularly those related to criminal deterrence and the prevention of violations of international humanitarian law, demonstrate that independence is not merely a normative value, but a practical condition for ensuring the credibility and usability of evidence.
Within this framework, the National Human Rights Commission, established under Law No. 62/2016, stands as the natural authority to undertake monitoring and documentation functions. It is an independent institution, not subject to the executive branch, and is vested with broad powers, including receiving complaints, conducting investigations, visiting places of detention, and issuing reports and recommendations. Its internal bylaws, adopted by Decree No. 1762/2025, further strengthened this role by establishing specialized committees, including the International Humanitarian Law Committee, which is tasked with monitoring and documenting violations related to armed conflicts.
This institutional framework enables the Commission to operate in accordance with international standards, both in terms of documentation methodology and guarantees of independence. It is capable of adopting clear protocols for evidence collection, including testimonial, digital, and physical evidence, and of ensuring a proper chain of custody, allowing evidence to be traced from the moment of collection through to its presentation before judicial authorities. It is also bound to protect witnesses and victims, and to safeguard the confidentiality of information, which is essential for building trust with individuals and communities.
By contrast, considerable confusion surrounds the role of the National Committee for International Humanitarian Law, established by Decree No. 4382/2010. Some misconceptions attribute to it responsibilities related to documentation or investigation of violations, despite the fact that such a role finds no basis in legal texts nor in the comparative practice of similar bodies.
National IHL committees, as established in international practice and in line with the guidance of the International Committee of the Red Cross, are governmental or semi-governmental bodies tasked with assisting the state in implementing its obligations under international humanitarian law. They do so by coordinating between ministries, proposing legislation, conducting harmonization studies, promoting knowledge of humanitarian law, and organizing training programs for armed forces and security agencies.
By virtue of this role, such committees are institutionally linked to the executive branch and include representatives from the ministries of defense, foreign affairs, interior, justice, and other official bodies. This representative character, while necessary for coordination, renders them unsuitable for undertaking the documentation of violations, particularly when such violations may be attributed to official entities or security forces. How can a body composed of representatives of these institutions investigate acts in which those same institutions may themselves be implicated?
The answer to this question reveals the essence of the distinction between the two institutions. The National Human Rights Commission is grounded in the principles of independence and neutrality, whereas the National Committee for International Humanitarian Law is based on governmental representation and coordination. The former serves as a reference body for accountability and documentation, while the latter functions as a reference for legislation and implementation. Any confusion between these roles not only weakens performance, but may also place justice itself at risk.
Assigning documentation tasks to a non-independent body opens the door to conflicts of interest, exposes evidence to legal challenge, and undermines victims’ trust. It may also transform the documentation process from a tool for uncovering the truth into one for managing or restricting it, in contradiction with the fundamental purpose of international humanitarian law, which is to protect victims and ensure accountability.
The Commission’s internal bylaws have recognized this issue, explicitly stating that the International Humanitarian Law Committee within the Commission “shall ensure coordination with the National Committee for International Humanitarian Law… in a manner that does not conflict with the independence of the Commission.” This phrase is not a mere formality; it is a governing principle that defines the relationship between the two bodies, balancing the need for cooperation with the imperative of preserving independence.
Coordination is necessary, indeed essential, to ensure complementarity of efforts and the exchange of expertise. The National Committee can benefit from the documentation produced by the Commission in shaping policies and legislation, while the Commission can draw on the Committee’s expertise in training and the dissemination of legal knowledge. However, such coordination must remain within clearly defined boundaries and must not evolve into overlapping mandates or subordination that would undermine the very essence of the Commission’s independence.
In this light, an integrated model can be envisaged based on a clear division of roles, whereby the National Committee undertakes functions related to prevention, legislation, and coordination, while the Commission assumes responsibility for monitoring, documentation, and evidence collection. This model not only enhances effectiveness, but also contributes to building a coherent justice system grounded in specialization and complementarity, rather than overlap and competition.
The importance of this distinction goes beyond the institutional framework and reaches the very core of the State’s obligations under international humanitarian law. States are required, under the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, to adopt legislative measures to ensure effective penal sanctions against those responsible for grave breaches, and to investigate such violations and prosecute or extradite their perpetrators. Customary international humanitarian law further obliges states to investigate war crimes falling within their jurisdiction.
However, these obligations cannot be fulfilled without a national system capable of producing reliable evidence. Courts, whether national or international, do not base their judgments on intentions or statements, but on evidence. If such evidence is tainted by doubt or produced by a non-independent body, it risks being excluded, thereby allowing perpetrators to escape accountability.
Thus, documenting violations is not merely a procedural step, but a sovereign act linked to victims’ rights and to the authority of the law. It requires, in addition to independence, high professional standards, including the training of investigators, the adoption of clear protocols, the provision of adequate resources, and the development of advanced information systems capable of storing and analyzing data.
This role also requires openness to international cooperation, whether with international organizations, United Nations mechanisms, or international investigative bodies. International crimes, by their nature, may transcend national borders, necessitating cross-border coordination and the exchange of information and evidence.
In this context, the National Human Rights Commission can play a pivotal role in linking the national and international levels, by providing reliable reports, contributing to international monitoring mechanisms, and cooperating with international judicial bodies where appropriate. This role enhances Lebanon’s standing on the international stage and demonstrates its genuine commitment to combating impunity.
At the same time, the National Committee for International Humanitarian Law remains an essential partner in this process through its role in developing legislation, promoting compliance, and disseminating legal knowledge. It contributes to building the legal framework within which the Commission operates, and to fostering the institutional environment necessary for the effective implementation of international humanitarian law.
However, the success of this model depends on respecting the boundaries between the two institutions and upholding the principle of independence. Without such commitment, the relationship may shift from complementarity to conflict, and from cooperation to overlap, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of the system as a whole.
In the end, the fundamental question remains: how can legal texts be translated into actual justice? The answer begins at the moment of documentation. If this moment is governed by independence, professionalism, and clear standards, the path to accountability becomes possible. If, however, it is tainted by dependency or ambiguity, then the truth itself becomes open to doubt.
Defending the mandate of the National Human Rights Commission to document violations and preserve evidence is not merely a defense of an institutional distribution of powers. It is a defense of victims’ right to justice, of society’s right to know the truth, and of the State’s right to be capable of fulfilling its international obligations.
In this sense, clarity of mandates and institutional independence constitute the first step toward building a state governed by the rule of law, a state that does not merely declare its commitment to international humanitarian law, but actively implements it through strong, independent institutions capable of transforming evidence into accountability, and accountability into justice.
هذه المقالة متاحة أيضًا بـ:
