A meeting in the Constitutional Council after tensions over the application of amnesty
The Attorney General of the Court of Cassation, Ahmad Rami Hajj, visited the seat of the Constitutional Council in Hadath on Thursday, 22 October 2026. He met with the President of the institution, Justice Tannous Mechleb. The meeting took place the day after a judicial circular on the application of the general amnesty law was issued. The document had revived questions about the conditions under which convicted or prosecuted persons could benefit from the new provisions. The two judges sought to clarify their positions and to put an end to reports of differences between their institutions.
The circular addressed to the appeal prosecutors and the financial prosecutor ‘ s office specified the documents to be collected before deciding on applications for termination or remission of sentences. It included consultation of criminal records and collection of information from the security services. The stated aim was to ensure uniform application of the law. However, these instructions have raised concerns among some lawyers, who fear that the administrative checks will lead to additional conditions for the beneficiaries of the amnesty.
After the meeting, Tannous Mechleb reaffirmed the binding nature of the decisions of the Constitutional Council. He also assured that there was no disagreement with the Office of the Public Prosecutor before the Court of Cassation as to the interpretation of the texts. Ahmad Rami Hajj confirmed that his institution would respect constitutional decisions and interpretations. This joint declaration has made it possible to ease tensions publicly, without removing all questions concerning the practical modalities of law enforcement.
Constitutional Decision No. 12 of 2026 at the centre of the debate
The difficulties arose after Constitutional Council Decision No. 12 of 2026, issued following an appeal against the General Amnesty Act. The Council did not cancel the whole text. However, he censored certain expressions and made reservations of interpretation concerning several provisions. These changes have affected, inter alia, the deadlines, the conditions for application and the determination of persons eligible for amnesty.
The scope of this decision is essential. The judicial authorities responsible for enforcing the law must take into account the provisions maintained, the elements censored and the interpretations imposed by the Constitutional Council. They cannot treat constitutional reservations as mere recommendations. This obligation explains why the instructions to prosecutors generated legal debate.
Tannous Mechleb also replied to the accusations that the Constitutional Council had encroached on Parliament’s powers. He claimed that his institution had not exceeded its prerogatives. In his view, the interpretations adopted were consistent with the Council’s legislative texts and powers.
Ahmad Rami Hajj, for his part, explained that the circular in question concerned the manner in which the law was enforced. He stated that the purpose of the instructions was to organize the work of prosecutors and to avoid differences in treatment between regions. The Attorney General acknowledged the existence of a misunderstanding around two points, while stating that discussions with the Constitutional Council had clarified the difficulties.
Prosecutors must gather the files before deciding
The circular of the Attorney-General provides for several checks prior to the examination of applications for amnesty. In particular, judges must have access to the criminal record of the person concerned and to information on the proceedings against him. Security services may be requested to complete the files. Coordination cells should also facilitate the collection of documents in different regions.
This organization responds to a practical difficulty. Persons eligible for amnesty may be involved in several proceedings, sometimes before different courts. Judges must therefore determine precisely the offences concerned, the decisions already handed down and any exclusions provided for by law. A request cannot be properly considered if the necessary information is missing or contradictory.
However, the multiplication of audits can slow down decisions. Lebanese courts operate with limited administrative means. The Registry has staff difficulties and the exchange of documents between institutions can take time. For detained persons, these delays have immediate consequences, since they can extend the wait for a decision that could change their criminal situation.
The Office of the Attorney-General states that it wants to avoid these difficulties by organizing the collection of information. The central question now is how the instructions will be applied in each jurisdiction.
Several prosecutions do not necessarily mean recidivism
One of the most sensitive points concerns the distinction between recidivism and the proliferation of legal proceedings. The criminal lawyer Sahar Mohsen points out that these two situations cannot be assimilated automatically. A person may be subject to several proceedings without having been convicted of each of the alleged offences. The mere existence of prosecution is therefore not sufficient to establish a recidivism in the legal sense.
This distinction is particularly relevant to drug records. Constitutional decision No. 12 of 2026 requires compliance with the legal conditions for characterizing recidivism. It would therefore be inconsistent with this interpretation to consider a person to be a repeat offender only because several procedures are included in his file.
Sahar Mohsen also recalls the importance of the presumption of innocence. A prosecution is not a conviction. Judges must examine the decisions rendered and the conditions laid down in the texts before determining whether a person is eligible for amnesty.
This issue can have important implications for inmates. Too broad an interpretation of recidivism could exclude some individuals from the benefit of the law. On the other hand, applying the legal criteria would make it possible to distinguish individual situations and prevent unjudged proceedings from being treated as final convictions.
Death row prisoners affected by a change in sentence
The General Amnesty Act also raises questions concerning persons sentenced to death. The judicial information published on 23 October refers to the conversion of certain sentences into forced labour. There is a distinction between final and non-final convictions.
The explanations given to the Attorney General indicate, inter alia, that certain final death sentences may be replaced by life sentences of hard labour, while situations concerning non-final decisions may be punishable by 17 years. However, the application of these provisions depends on the nature of the conviction and the conditions laid down by law.
This issue is of particular interest to prisoners involved in old cases. The transformation of a sentence does not necessarily mean immediate release. Consideration must be given to the finality of decisions, other possible convictions and the legal procedures for calculating sentences.
Individual consequences should therefore be examined separately. There is no general mechanism to conclude that all persons sentenced to death will automatically benefit from the same remission.
The case of Ahmad al-Assir raises questions
The Ahmad al-Assir case is one of the cases likely to be affected by the new provisions. The information published refers to the possibility of a reduction of his sentence, following clarifications on the transformation of certain convictions.
However, this perspective is not a release decision. It depends on the examination of the sentences handed down, their finality and the provisions applicable to each of them. Judges will also have to take into account any other proceedings concerning the person concerned.
The political and judicial importance of this case explains the attention it raises. Ahmad al-Assir was convicted in cases related to armed clashes and serious acts. Any change in its criminal situation could cause significant reactions among the victims’ families and the various political components.
As of 23 October 2026, the available evidence therefore suggests a possibility of amending the sentence, but not a final decision on his release.
Families of prisoners challenge certain interpretations
Law enforcement has also provoked reactions among the families of Islamist detainees. Several relatives of prisoners contest the constitutional and judicial interpretations they consider likely to limit the effects of amnesty.
Their claims are part of an old debate on the length of detentions and the difficulties encountered by some prisoners in obtaining a final judgement. In particular, families report years of detention without trial. They call for prompt application of the law and clarification of the categories of persons concerned.
These claims are not limited to the release of detainees. They also concern equal treatment between regions and different categories of convicted persons. Some politicians believe that an amnesty law must take account of these balances in order to avoid further tensions.
However, the situation remains complex. The offences concerned are not all of the same gravity and the convictions are not subject to the same procedures. The judicial authorities must therefore apply the legal provisions without considering different cases.
An application that now depends on judicial decisions
The 22 October meeting between Ahmad Rami Hajj and Tannous Mechleb made it possible to clarify publicly the relations between the Attorney General’s Office and the Constitutional Council. Both officials affirmed their willingness to coordinate law enforcement and respect constitutional interpretations.
Difficulties are now moving towards the courts responsible for examining applications. Prosecutors will have to collect the necessary documents, verify convictions and distinguish between recidivism and multiple prosecutions. They will also have to apply the provisions concerning the conversion of sentences, particularly in the most sensitive cases.
The first effects of the amnesty will thus depend on the speed of proceedings and the consistency of decisions taken in the different regions. For detainees and their families, the immediate issue concerns the time needed to obtain a judicial response.
As of 23 October 2026, there is no sufficiently documented estimate of the definitive number of persons eligible for amnesty. Individual decisions will have to establish the concrete consequences of the law, especially for those sentenced to heavy sentences and those affected by several procedures.
Comments