October 14, 2026
A high-ranking judge stated that the wanted person, Noah Zuaiter, may be a beneficiary of the general amnesty law, in light of the interpretation issued by the Constitutional Council of the concept of “repetition” in drug crimes, which limited it to its legal meaning based on the issuance of a previous final ruling, and not merely multiple prosecutions and arrest warrants.
This reading is based on Resolution No. 12/2026, which explicitly stated that “repetition, according to its meaning in the Penal Code, is only achieved by the issuance of a previous final ruling, and prosecution is not sufficient evidence of it,” with the Council including this interpretation among the reservations required for the application of the Amnesty Law.
Accordingly, the large number of judicial files against Zuaiter alone is not sufficient to exclude him from the amnesty under the pretext of repetition, as this is required for verification of the existence of a previous, concluded conviction followed by the commission of a subsequent offense that meets the conditions for repetition, confirming that prosecution is not a conviction and that the multiplicity of cases does not substitute for final sentences.
Regarding absentee judgments, the judge explained that not all of them are considered automatically concluded; In felony crimes, the judgment in absentia issued against the fugitive accused is dropped upon his arrest or his surrender in accordance with the rules. It may not be considered a basis for repetition without examining his legal status, while in misdemeanors the matter depends on the validity of the notification and the methods and deadlines for appeal.
The judge pointed out that the Constitutional Council’s interpretation opens the door for Zuaiter to benefit from amnesty for drug crimes that meet the conditions, provided that the standard impediment to repetition is not proven. However, the constitutional decision did not name Zuaiter by name and did not issue a direct ruling to include him in amnesty. Rather, it established a general legal rule that the judiciary must apply to its files.
There remains a fundamental difference between the inclusion of certain crimes in the pardon and the perpetrator being released. Zuaiter may benefit in some cases, while he will continue to be prosecuted or arrested in other cases if they are related to excluded crimes or to acts that occurred outside the time frame of the law, as the Council adopted the date of March 1, 2026, as a unified time limit for the crimes covered, including drug crimes and their cultivation.
The conclusion of the judicial reading is that the amnesty law includes Zuaiter in files that meet its conditions, and that the multiplicity of prosecutions alone does not prevent him from benefiting, provided that determining the scope of this inclusion and the possibility of his release remains subject to the decision of the competent judicial authorities after careful scrutiny of the rulings and the overall reasons for the arrest.
