The signing of the comprehensive amnesty law does not mean that prison doors will automatically open for all those covered. Following the publication of the law in the official gazette, a more complex phase begins, involving determining which cases fall under the amnesty and its judicial implementation mechanism.
As the law comes into effect, the judiciary faces the task of applying its rulings to thousands of cases, given the diversity of crimes and the different stages of legal proceedings, necessitating a clear and unified mechanism to identify beneficiaries.
According to information from 'Lebanon Debate', Public Prosecutor of Cassation Judge Ahmed Rami Al-Haj is expected to hold a series of meetings next week with the appellate public prosecutions in different regions and the financial public prosecution to discuss the mechanism for applying the law and address the issues some of its provisions may raise.
Multiple Crimes: The Main Challenge
One of the major complications involves files that include more than one crime, where one crime may fall under the amnesty while another does not.
In such cases, the inclusion of a crime in the amnesty does not automatically drop the entire file. It is up to the competent judicial authority to determine the impact of the amnesty on each crime, its effect on the penalty, and the continuation of detention.
Additionally, the application mechanism varies based on each prisoner's legal status, whether detained without a conviction, sentenced under appeal, or with a definitive sentence. Each scenario has its legal path regarding dropping the public lawsuit, erasing the penalty, calculating the detention period, or continuing prosecution for crimes not covered by the amnesty.
Who's Responsible for Implementing the Law?
The complexity of execution is compounded by the multiplicity of judicial authorities, with implementation authority spread across public prosecutions, investigative judges, criminal and military courts, and authorities concerned with executing penalties.
This situation could lead to different interpretations of some law articles, making a unified application mechanism essential to avoid inconsistent treatment of similar cases.
In this context, attention turns to the Supreme Judicial Council, expected to discuss the practical issues linked to law implementation, preparing to issue a circular that clarifies implementation mechanisms and unifies followed procedures without modifying the law or adding new provisions, as this is within legislative authority.
No Release Without Scrutiny
The executive mechanism is anticipated to define how to prepare and scrutinize beneficiary lists and handle files involving multiple crimes, alongside specifying the judicial document that will form the basis for a release or penalty drop decision.
Thus, no prisoner will be released based on their name appearing on a list or media announcement alone, but only after reviewing their file and ensuring they meet the amnesty criteria and verifying there are no other warrants or sentences preventing their release.
Constitutional Council Appeal
The potential appeal of the law before the Constitutional Council could add a new dimension to the situation, especially if the appeal is accompanied by a request to suspend the law's effect pending a decision.
In the absence of a clear decision to suspend the execution, the law remains valid after its publication in the official gazette, obliging judicial bodies to apply its provisions within the legal frameworks.
Hence, the real challenge is not in signing the comprehensive amnesty law but in applying it swiftly, fairly, and transparently. Any delay in establishing a unified mechanism may turn the law, intended to address the prison crisis, into a new source of confusion and disparity, especially among detainees with similar legal statuses but different judicial authorities handling their cases.