A movement that fears becoming ordinary information
» Has our strike become repetitive information? Don’t be silent about our tragedy. We are a cause waiting for a solution. After 23 days of hunger strike, the message issued by Lebanese detainees no longer seeks to draw attention to their situation. It reflects another concern: that of seeing the very duration of their mobilization eventually trivialize it. The longer the test continues, the more it should cause an answer. Yet prisoners now fear the opposite effect. Their movement risks becoming a new component of the prison landscape, mentioned and then forgotten in the midst of other crises that occupy the state.
As of October 6, 2026, the information available is sufficient to establish the continuation of the strike for 23 days. However, they do not provide a comprehensive enough survey to identify all participants individually, specify each person’s detention facility or establish their personal medical status. Nor does they present a detailed and common platform for assigning to all strikers an identical set of claims. This limit prevents them from turning their mobilization into a programme they would not themselves have formulated. It does not remove the main fact: prisoners have been using the refusal to feed for more than three weeks to demand a solution to their situation.
Their mobilization comes at a time when the issue of prisons is re-established in the political and religious debate. The Mufti of the Republic, Abdel Latif Derian, announced during his trip to Tripoli and Akkar that he continued to follow the general amnesty file. It explicitly requested that this possible measure also include the case of Sheikh Ahmad Al Assir. This position does not mean that all prisoners on strike demand the same thing. There is no evidence of this. It shows, however, that the issue of the fate of prisoners and unresolved judicial records has again become sufficiently sensitive to be brought publicly by the mufti.
Two temporalities meet in this way. On one side, that of prisoners, now counted as days of food deprivation. On the other hand, politics, which includes discussions, amnesty projects and compromise searches. The difficulty is whether the second can produce an answer before the first turns the movement into a human emergency.
Twenty-three days now require an institutional response
A hunger strike has a particular characteristic: time is not only the length of the protest, it is one of the main instruments. Each additional day increases the pressure on the authorities and makes the need for medical follow-up more important. However, duration alone does not allow a person to establish health status. Age, medical history, fluid consumption, treatment and fitness play an essential role. It would therefore be irresponsible to attribute to detainees specific complications that are not documented.
However, after 23 days, several questions become legitimate. Do the detainees concerned receive regular medical attention? How many actually continue the strike? Have any of them interrupted for health reasons? Is there a team to negotiate with them? Which institution has received their demands and what response has it given them? The information available on 6 October does not provide an accurate answer to these questions. This lack of data itself becomes a weakness in the institutional processing of the file.
The strikers’ message reveals their sense of being confronted with this invisibility. They no longer only ask that their cause be known. They ask that she not be forgotten by being known. The difference is important. Mobilisation can attract much attention when it is launched, and then gradually disappear from the public agenda as it continues. In an up-to-date situation dominated by the South, negotiations with Israel, regional tensions, the economic crisis and political debates, the prison situation can quickly be pushed back to the background.
For prisoners, this mechanism is particularly difficult to combat. They do not have the same means of action as other social groups. They cannot demonstrate in the streets, organize conferences freely or travel to politicians. Their own bodies became one of the few protest instruments still available. The use of the hunger strike thus indicates as much the perceived seriousness of their situation as the weakness of the other means available to them to impose their case in the public debate.
The general amnesty comes back, with all its contradictions
Abdel Latif Derian’s statement puts on the table one of the most controversial answers: the general amnesty. The mufti claims to follow this file and wants him to understand Ahmad Al Assir. This request immediately brings the debate out of prison. The general amnesty is the responsibility of the legislator. It requires determining which offences could be affected, which categories would be excluded and how to deal with very different judicial records.
The case of Ahmad Al Assir illustrates the difficulty. His name bears a security, political and judicial burden that goes far beyond an abstract discussion of prison overcrowding. As soon as such a person enters the debate, amnesty ceases to be a means of reducing the number of detainees. It becomes a record of power relations between political forces, religious sensitivities, families concerned and judicial institutions.
A general amnesty cannot therefore be confused with a simple collective release decision. It requires criteria. It also raises the issue of victims and their rights. Some detainees may be imprisoned for very different acts than others. A measure that is broad enough to satisfy all requests may erase these differences. An overly restrictive measure may, on the other hand, lose the political objective for which it was designed.
The return of the subject nevertheless shows that the status quo becomes difficult to defend. If politicians consider that an amnesty is necessary, the dossier must be removed from the register of periodic promises to enter the register of a specific text. If they feel that it is not possible, then they must present other mechanisms to resolve problems that may be unamended. Maintaining the promise of a solution at the same time and the absence of a timetable only prolongs uncertainty.
Not all detainees are in the same legal situation
The debate on prisons quickly becomes confused when the terms « inmate », « prisoner », « convicted » and « indicted » are used as if they meant exactly the same situation. However, a person sentenced by a final decision is not in the same position as a person awaiting trial. The legal responses are therefore not interchangeable.
The information available on strikers does not allow for a precise breakdown between convicted and detained persons pending the completion of their proceedings. It would therefore be incorrect to portray the entire movement as a revolt of persons in custody. It would be equally incorrect to assume that all are serving final sentences. Their common point is their participation in a strike that has lasted 23 days and they ask for a solution to their cause.
However, this distinction is essential for any public response. When a convicted person challenges his or her situation, the possibilities depend on his or her judgement, the remedies and possibly a legislative measure. When an accused person is awaiting trial, the issue may relate to the length of the proceedings and judicial decisions relating to his detention. Mixing these situations produces a politically dramatic but legally unhelpful debate.
The same caution applies to offences. Prisoners may be involved in criminal, security or other matters. The information examined does not allow a single category to be assigned to strikers. A possible amnesty should precisely face this diversity, instead of masking it behind a general definition of the prison population.
A credible reform should therefore begin with a clear mapping of the files concerned. Who’s convicted? Who’s waiting for his judgment? How long? For what categories of offences? What procedure remains to be completed? Without this data, the debate risks remaining trapped in contradictory slogans: for some, all prisoners would be victims of injustice; For others, any discussion of their situation would constitute a challenge to justice. None of these simplifications can solve individual cases.
A justice that itself lacks staff
The prison crisis is taking place in parallel with another case revealing the difficulties of the judicial system: that of275 legal assistants who passed the competitions but remained without appointment. Of a last promotion of 375 received, the government appointed only 100 people, i.e. 80 clerks and 20 bailiffs. The remaining 275 are still waiting, while a new competition for 250 posts is envisaged.
Both files must not be artificially confused. There is no evidence to suggest that the appointment of these assistants would automatically result in a measurable reduction in the prison population or would resolve all the delays in court. But juxtaposition reveals an institutional problem. The state wants to speed up and reform the justice system while individuals selected to participate in its functioning remain themselves blocked by a political controversy over appointments.
The clerks and bailiffs shall not render judgments. Their role is, however, indispensable for the day-to-day functioning of the courts. Judicial proceedings do not depend solely on the number of judges. They are based on an entire administration responsible for records, acts, hearings and notifications. An institution that operates with insufficient resources will have more difficulty in dealing quickly with a high volume of procedures.
Justice Minister Adel Nassar faces two parallel demands: improving the functioning of the system and addressing the political constraints on its administration. The blocking of judicial assistants illustrates the difficulty of moving from a general discourse on reform to concrete administrative decisions.
In the case of detained persons, the dysfunction of the justice system has a different consequence than that which they have for the rest of the population. An ordinary administrative delay can cost time. A delay affecting a criminal case may prolong a period spent behind bars. This gives judicial efficiency an immediate human dimension.
Amnesty can empty cells without repairing the system
One mistake would be to consider the general amnesty as a complete prison reform. Such a measure may, depending on its scope, allow for the release of certain categories of prisoners and reduce the pressure on institutions on an ad hoc basis. However, it does not remove the mechanisms that produced the initial difficulties.
If procedures remain slow, new inmates may accumulate. If the judicial administration remains under-equipped, the cases will continue to be delayed. If no sustainable policy is put in place, a one-time reduction in the prison population can be followed a few years later by a new saturation.
The real choice is therefore not between amnesty and reform. The two questions are different. An amnesty is a political and legislative decision on facts and individuals determined according to defined criteria. A reform of the justice system and prisons concerns the way the system operates before, during and after imprisonment.
The current debate would benefit from a clear distinction between these levels. Cases that can be resolved by judicial acceleration do not necessarily require amnesty. Convictions that can only be amended by legislation fall under another mechanism. The problems of conditions of detention are still a third category.
This separation would also make responsibilities more visible. Parliament must respond when legislation is needed. The government must act when administrative means or prison policies are concerned. Justice must intervene when the solution depends on a judicial decision. Without this distribution, each institution can wait for the other to take the initiative.
Lack of information becomes a public problem
After 23 days of strike, the file suffers from a lack of precise information. The exact number of participants still on strike should be known. Their general medical situation should be documented without violating their privacy. Their main claims should be clearly presented. The identity of the structure responsible for dialogue with them should also be public.
Transparency is important for the detainees themselves. It prevents their demands from being reformulated by intermediaries or used in political battles that do not necessarily correspond to their priorities. It also protects institutions. An authority that publishes what it has received, what it can accept and what falls under another institution reduces the space left to rumors.
This information is finally necessary for the public. A citizen cannot make a serious opinion about the amnesty, detention or possible injustice of an individual situation without knowing the facts. The prison must not become a space where the lack of visibility is considered normal on the sole ground that those who are there are deprived of liberty.
Deprivation of liberty is precisely the reason why institutional transparency must be strengthened. A detained person is almost entirely dependent on the State for access to the care, security and procedures that concern him or her. Public scrutiny of this relationship is one of the guarantees necessary for the functioning of a judicial system.
The strikers’ message reveals that they consider this visibility insufficient. Their request not to « be silent » is not just addressed to the authorities. It also targets a society that can get used to their situation.
A dossier overshadowed by major national crises
Part of the timing explains this difficulty. Lebanon is simultaneously experiencing a series of heavy crises. The South remains subject to Israeli operations. Military negotiations with Israel mobilize those responsible. The question of the future of the United Nations Interim Force is open. The government is looking for a solution to electricity. The debate on the electoral law resumes. Financial and banking reforms continue to influence the agenda.
In this accumulation, prisons do not have the same capacity to impose. They do not have an international deadline or a diplomatic appointment requiring the authorities to provide a response at a given date. It is precisely this vacuum of calendar that the hunger strike is trying to fill. Inmates make their own maturity by counting the days.
The risk is that the state will respond only when the medical emergency becomes sufficiently serious. Such a method would transform the deterioration of health into a listening condition. However, an institution should not wait until the human cost increases in order to open a dialogue that it could engage in before.
However, it is not a matter of automatically accepting applications because they are accompanied by a strike. The role of the authorities is to examine claims, explain what can be decided, transmit what is within Parliament or the justice system and ensure medical follow-up. An institutional response may be negative on some points. It cannot be non-existent.
From the slogan of amnesty to a verifiable decision
Abdel Latif Derian’s position now offers political support to supporters of the general amnesty. However, it does not address any of the issues that previously blocked this file. As soon as a text has to be written, categories of offences, exclusions and sensitive individual cases will return to the forefront.
The reference to Ahmad Al Assir already shows it. For its supporters, its inclusion may appear as a condition of fairness. For other actors, it can become precisely the point that makes compromise impossible. Other categories of inmates may, in turn, ask why they would be excluded from a general measure.
Parliament will therefore have to decide whether it really wants to open this project. If he does, the discussion will have to leave the register of promises. A specific project will finally reveal who could be involved and what red lines are defended by the various political forces.
If this path remains blocked, the executive and the judiciary will not be able to consider that the whole prison file must wait. Situations that fall under other procedures should be examined separately. The slow pace of a debate on amnesty cannot become a general response to all the difficulties in prisons.
On the twenty-third day, it is ultimately this lack of identifiable path that gives the prisoner’s message its strength. Their formula does not only demand compassion. She’s asking for an exit. The available sources do not allow us to say today what form this output can take for each of them. On the other hand, they show that after more than three weeks of strike, the time for simple observation is exceeded. A case that « waits for a solution » cannot remain indefinitely suspended between a promise of amnesty, judicial proceedings and the silence of cells.
Comments