In Roumieh, dozens of prisoners in Building B protested against the slow implementation of the general amnesty. Families demand quick decisions. However, the examination of each case remains separate from the vote of the law and its constitutional control.
The rally reported on 3 November was held in the courtyard of Building B of the central prison. The detainees requested the release of the persons covered by the text. The movement came after the death of a prisoner two days earlier. No medical or causal link can be established from this single sequence of events.
The participants ended the gathering after management’s commitment to forward their requests to the competent authorities. This promise is neither a release decision nor a schedule for processing cases.
In Roumieh, amnesty is judged in cases
Detainees and their relatives first assess the scope of the law through actual exits. The adoption of a text does not, however, alone answer the question of its application to a particular person. The characterization of the facts, the status of the proceedings and the conditions laid down must be examined.
The explanations attributed to a judicial source indicate several factors of slowdown. Some cases require an interpretation of the scope of amnesty in the light of the Constitutional Council’s decision. Others remain subject to filing and processing. This source also refers to the responsibility of prosecutors, courts and prison services.
This assessment remains that of the judicial source. It does not determine the cause of waiting in each case. Nor is it sufficient to rule out family criticism of actual delays.
Three steps not to be confused
Act No. 70 was promulgated on 4 September 2026. The Constitutional Council issued its decision No. 12/2026 on 12 October. It has censored certain provisions and added reservations of interpretation. The text should therefore be applied taking into account that decision.
The vote shall lay down the provisions of the amnesty. Constitutional control relates to the conformity of the contested provisions. The judicial authority must then determine their effects in the cases before it. These steps have different objects.
The transition from one stage to another does not, therefore, mechanically produce a common exit date. Two persons detained in the same building may report different legal situations. The only place of detention does not mention their eligibility.
The same judicial source rejects the idea of widespread voluntary obstruction. She referred in particular to late applications filed by some counsel. Without a detailed statement of the requests, however, it would be impossible to measure the respective share of interpretation difficulties, delays in filing and processing burden.
Families call for emergency priority
The Committee on Prisoners’ Families calls for acceleration and intervention in serious medical situations. It warns of a risk of deterioration of conditions in prisons. The League of Muslim Ulemas also calls for the removal of procedural obstacles and the implementation of the text without discrimination.
These requests concern both the judicial pace and the conditions of detention. A medical emergency cannot wait until the general debate on amnesty is settled. It calls for a response tailored to the individual’s situation, regardless of the political arguments surrounding the law.
The protesters also referred to the release in Syria of detainees transferred from Lebanon. Their statements do not allow the files to be compared or deducted from them an identical right for those remaining in Roumieh. Individual procedures and decisions must be verified separately.
Making deadlines visible
No verified balance of releases related to this mobilisation is available in the items examined. It would therefore be premature to announce a number of exits or to present all the detainees concerned by the rally as beneficiaries of the amnesty.
The information most useful to families remains concrete: date of deposit, authority seized, possibly missing documents and state of examination. Roumieh’s management must pass on the claims. The court proceedings shall specify, on a case-by-case basis, which part of the text and under what conditions.
Comments