October 31, 2026
Complexities of the general amnesty law in Lebanon: discrepancies in judicial jurisprudence and fears of corruption and lack of equality
Efforts to release the beneficiaries of the General Amnesty Law in Lebanon are encountering serious practical obstacles, turning the path of freedom expected for the detainees and their families into a complex and question-laden path, amid a clear discrepancy in procedures and interpretation of legal texts between one court and another.
In this context, the lawyer and human rights activist specializing in prison files, Mariana Berro, explained in an interview with the “Lebanon Debate” website that requests for release have already been submitted, and that dropping prosecutions based on the pardon has begun in some files, with work on the files of the convicts to begin during the next week. However, she confirmed that the implementation process suffers from “loss and fragmentation,” pointing to the absence of unified standards. Two judges make two completely different decisions regarding the same crime, such as attempted murder files, not to mention the difference in documents required between one judicial authority and another.
Berro believes that this chaos reflects a real organizational crisis that contradicts the official promises made regarding rapid release during the first two days of the law’s implementation. She expected this file to remain unresolved for several months in the absence of radical solutions, warning that the absence of unified standards paves the way for corruption and deals, as people who are not included in the amnesty may benefit, while the real beneficiaries are deprived due to the lack of sufficient support to follow up on their files.
In the file of justice and equality, Berro criticized the exclusion of a number of military personnel from the comprehensiveness of the law, even though the charges against some of them are no more than simple misdemeanors, at a time when the amnesty includes more serious crimes such as drugs, murder, and robbery, describing this disparity as blatant injustice, and stressing that her assessment of the actual application falls “below zero.”
The human rights activist also touched on the suffering of lawyers and families with some clerk heads and employees, indicating that practical pressure does not justify the nervous and sullen behavior of some employees, which increases the difficulty of completing transactions, unlike others who cooperate seriously with auditors. She pointed out that this reality puts the lawyer in front of a double dilemma: It represented a complete inability to inform his client of the fate of his file, and uncertainty about the nature of the expected administrative response.
Berro concluded by noting that she received continuous calls from prisoners in Roumieh and other prisons inquiring about release dates amid a slow pace that she described as “terrifying,” criticizing statements issued by judicial authorities regarding advance preparation for implementation. It concluded that the practical experience revealed failure, fragmentation, and an absence of justice, stressing that slogans and media meetings are worthless unless they are translated into transparent procedures that alleviate the suffering of detainees and protect the rights of victims and lawyers alike.
