Asylum seekers and Refugees:

Languishing in Injustice

March 2011

By Lebanese Centre for Human Rights - CLDH

This study is part of the “Multimedia Virtual Space for Human Rights” project funded by the European
Union. It is carried out by the Italian NGO COSV (Coordination Committee of the Organizations for
Voluntary Service) in partnership with three Lebanese NGOs: KAFA (Enough) Violence & Exploitation,
the Permanent Peace Movement (PPM) and the Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH).

The establishment of a Multimedia Virtual Space for Human Rights is the key objective of a two-year
project (2009-2010) that aims at strengthening mutual cooperation among civil society organizations
for a better integration of human rights, democratization and good governance in national development
plans.

An open coalition of NGOs has been drawn up for the management of the virtual space and the project
includes, among other activities, research on various human rights topics in Lebanon ranging from
freedom of association to trafficking and racism. For more information on the project, please contact
http://www.humanrights-lb.org

Apart from the 4 project partners, the NGOs taking part in the Human Rights in Lebanon Coalition
to date are: Amel Association, Amnesty International Lebanon, Association Libanaise pour l’Education
et la Formation (ALEF), Association Najdeh, INSAN Association, Lebanese Association for Civil Rights
(LACR), Lebanese Association for Democratic Elections (LADE), Lebanese Center for Civic Education
(LCCE), and Support of Lebanese in Detention an Exile (SOLIDE).

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication
are the sole responsibility of the Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH), COSV (Coordination Committee of the
Organizations for Voluntary Service), KAFA (Enough) Violence & Exploitation and the Permanent Peace Movement
(PPM) and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

© The Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH), COSV (Coordination Committee of the Organizations
for Voluntary Service), KAFA (Enough) Violence & Exploitation and the Permanent Peace Movement
(PPM).
CLDH, Bakhos Building , 1st floor, Mar Youssef Street, Dora, Beirut, Lebanon - http://www.cldh-lebanon.org

2
 Table of Content
Lebanese Center for Human Rights  4

Introduction and methodology  5

Legal Framework  6

I - The Lebanese law and the refugee status  6

A. Legal vacuum  6

B. Attempts to overcome the legal vacuum   7

C. Refugees penalized by their status   10

II - International obligations of Lebanon towards asylum seekers and refugees  11

A. Why Lebanon did not ratify the 1951 Geneva Convention for refugees?  11

B. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights  12

C. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  12

D. The Convention against torture  12

Major violations committed against asylum seekers and refugees in Lebanon  13

I - Arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and refugees.  13

II - Violations of the Convention against Torture in the case of asylum seekers and refugees in
Lebanon  17

A. The practice of torture against asylum seekers and refugees  17

B. Violation of article 3 of the Convention against torture  20

II - Violations of the rights of asylum seekers and refugees: for what purpose and ‘result’?  22

Position of various relevant actors in the field of immigration and asylum  23

I - UNHCR – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees  23

II - Ministry of Interior  28

III - Justice  30

IV - Civil Society  32

Recommendations  34

Endnotes  36

Notes  40

3
Lebanese Center for Human Rights

The Lebanese Center for Human Rights (hereinafter CLDH) is a local non-profit, non-political and
independent Lebanese human rights organization based in Beirut.

CLDH was created in 2006 by the French Lebanese Movement SOLIDA (Support for Lebanese
detained arbitrarily) that has been active since 1996 in the fight against arbitrary detention, enforced
disappearance and impunity of perpetrators of gross human rights violations.

CLDH monitors the human rights situation in Lebanon, fights against enforced disappearance, impunity,
arbitrary detention, and racism and provides rehabilitation to the victims of torture.

CLDH regularly organizes press conferences, workshops, trainings and awareness-raising meetings on
human rights in Lebanon recording and documenting violations of human rights through reports and
press releases.

CLDH team on the ground supports initiatives aimed at unveiling the fate of all missing persons in
Lebanon.

CLDH regularly follows up on numerous cases of arbitrary detention and torture in coordination
with Lebanese and international organizations, with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture.

In 2007, CLDH opened Centre Nassim, a rehabilitation center for the victims of torture in Beirut, a member
of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture victims (IRCT), which provides multidisciplinary
support to the victims of torture and their families.

CLDH compiles a daily press review on human rights violations and ongoing judiciary cases in Lebanon
and daily updates several blogs.

CLDH is also a founding member of the Euro-Med Federation against Enforced Disappearances
(FEMED), a member of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN) and of the SOS
Torture Network of the World Organization against Torture (OMCT).

4
Introduction and methodology
A refugee is a person who is outside the country of his or her nationality, owing to a well-founded fear
of being persecuted and who cannot return to his or her country because of this fear.

An asylum seeker is an individual seeking protection as a refugee, even if he has not been formally
recognized as such. This term normally applies to a person who is still waiting for the authorities to
decide on his/her refugee status. The lack of official recognition does not diminish his/her rights to
protection under international law. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “everyone
has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”1

In July 2010, the United Nations High Commissioner

for Refugees (hereafter UNHCR) reported that in
Lebanon there are 9.130 asylum seekers and refugees
registered with their agency, 87% are allegedly from
Iraq.

As Lebanon has not ratified the 1951 Geneva

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees , and
does not apply any specific regulations that would
address the protection needs of asylum seekers and
refugees, people who find refuge in Lebanon are
considered as “illegal immigrants”.

Forced to hide, banned from working, they must wait until the UNHCR decides on their situation.
UNHCR is the only body in Lebanon which has the competence to examine the situation of asylum
seekers entering Lebanon and to decide whether they have a well-founded fear when claiming that
they cannot return to their country of origin.

If their fear is well founded, UNHCR grants them a refugee status, which is not recognized by the
Lebanese authorities, and attests that the asylum seekers cannot return to their country of origin. As
Lebanon is not a host country for refugees, UNHCR must seek a resettlement solution in a third country.
This process usually takes several years.

In the best-case scenario, refugees are resettled by the UNHCR in a third country, usually after several
years of suffering due to their illegal situation in Lebanon. They are banned from working, - resulting in
psychological and material consequences.

In the worst case scenario, refugees cannot be resettled. They, then are trapped in a country that does
not recognize their status (Lebanon), and cannot return to their country of origin, and do not have any
resettlement solution in a third country.

This research aims to assess the causes and consequences of such violations, current practices
and responsiveness of the institutions in charge, in order to propose applicable, viable and
realistic solutions.

The collection of information used in this report took place from February to November 2010. Interviews
were conducted with asylum seekers and refugees in detention in Lebanon, deported to their country of
origin or resettled in third countries and with representatives of various institutions in charge of these
issues (Ministry of Interior, General Security, UNHCR...) as well as civil society organizations concerned.
Existing information resources were also used.

5
 Legal Framework
I - The Lebanese law and the refugee status

A. Legal vacuum
The 1962 Law Regulating the Entry and Stay of Foreigners in Lebanon and their Exit from the Country
regulates the stay and circulation of foreigners3.

Articles 26 to 314specifically relate to refugees qualified as « political ». These articles, which constitute
the only Lebanese legislative provisions dealing with asylum, are not effectively implemented.

In fact, this status would have been recognized only once, in 1999, when a member of a Japanese Red
Army was granted political refugee status in Lebanon by the committee in charge of issuing political
asylum.5

6
Lebanese law does not specifically recognize the
existence of refugees, according to the international
definition, namely any person who “owing to well-founded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is
outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to
such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that
country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside
the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such
events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to
it”.7

However, given their situation in their country of origin, these persons have often fled from an
immediate persecution, that is to say in conditions that do not allow them to ask for and/or obtain a
visa. Consequently, due to this context/situation which is not taken into consideration by the 1962 law,
refugees are being penalized, on equal footing with migrants, in case of illegal entry and/or stay on the
Lebanese territory.

In the event of legal entry into Lebanon, refugees have no means afterwards to legally stay on the
Lebanese territory, and end up in an illegal situation.

6
B. Attempts to overcome the legal vacuum 

The 2003 Memorandum of Understanding.

On September 9, 2003, in order to try to improve their “cooperation” and “coordination”, a memorandum
of understanding was signed between the UNHCR and the General Security.

This memorandum provides asylum seekers two months from the date of their illegal entry into
Lebanon to apply for asylum with the UNHCR. On this basis they can be given a temporary three
months residence permit, i.e. the term granted by the General Security to the UNHCR to decide on the
asylum application. After those three months, UNHCR approves the request for asylum, the refugee is
granted a 6 months residence permit, extendable subsequently up to 3 months, whereby a solution of
resettlement should be found.

Several comments should be made concerning this memorandum:

On the principles:

In its preamble, the memorandum states that Lebanon is neither party to the Geneva Convention Relating
to the Status of Refugees of July 28, 1951 nor to its Protocol of January 31, 19678. This memorandum does
not mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or binding international instruments ratified by
Lebanon, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Yet, these international commitments are
also relevant for the protection of refugees and have force of law in Lebanon9.

The memorandum also endorses the discretionary power of the General Security, which may in some
cases, refuse to issue temporary residence permits, including persons meeting the conditions of the
memorandum.

On the applicability:

The memorandum includes provisions that make it inapplicable

in many cases. In fact it only applies to persons who entered “This refugee has applied for asylum
Lebanon illegally less than two months before the date they more than two months after his entry
applied for asylum with - UNHCR. Indeed, it does not apply into Lebanon, he does not fall under
to a foreign worker whose country suddenly switches into a the memorandum “, or “This refugee
dangerous situation, and therefore cannot return home. has been in Lebanon for over a year
and there is still no solution for a
In total, the memorandum only gives UNHCR one year to third-country resettlement; this case
resettle refugees in third countries. In 2009, resettlement in is not provided by the memorandum,
third countries took an average of just over two years. This is he must be deported.”
not to mention refugees who do not meet the resettlement
criteria and for whom there is no solution outside Lebanon. These are phrases we have heard
In other words, refugees who have regularized their stay in from General Security officers
Lebanon through this memorandum inevitably relapse after a during this research.
year.

Development of this agreement:

This Memorandum, which by its very core already applicable to a limited number of cases, and moreover
left to the discretion of the General Security, provided measures to regulate the stay of a lower influx
of refugees, especially Iraqis who in 2003 began to arrive in Lebanon. But the deteriorating situation in
Iraq in 2006 caused a massive influx of refugees who have made this agreement null and void. During
this research however, we have noticed that the General Security continued to evoke as it sees fit with
this memorandum, and notably its negative aspects, whereas this agreement is no longer applied (see
box above).

7
Decision of the Council of Ministers in 2010.

Faced with the problem of foreigners in detention despite the end of their sentence, and that of refugees,
the Minister of Interior Ziyad Baroud called for the formation of an inter-ministerial commission to rule
on this subject.

The commission, chaired by the Prime Minister Saad Hariri, was formed on April 14, 2010, by the
resolution number 19 of the Council of Ministers, which approved the work of the Commission on
September 7, 2010. Even if the final report of the commission in question has not been made public,
it seems that the proposals presented by Interior Minister Ziyad Baroud to the Council of Ministers on
June 5, 2010 have been approved.

On the principles:

This inter-ministerial commission seems to have shared its vision of the situation and to have suggested
solutions after meetings between the various stakeholders involved in the issue. Nevertheless, the
outcome of these consultations could not replace a new Memorandum of Understanding between
UNHCR and the Lebanese authorities which would be applicable and would put an end once and for all
to Human Rights violations committed against asylum seekers and refugees in Lebanon.

The decision of the Council of Ministers on September, 7, 2010 endorses the report of the inter-ministerial
commission, which in short, recalls that Lebanon is neither a temporary nor a permanent country of
asylum. In other words, as in the 2003 Memorandum, this decision would not recall the obligations of
Lebanon, but would insist on its non-bonds.

It also allegedly recalls the applicability of the 1962 Law Regulating the Entry and Stay of Foreigners in
Lebanon and their Exit from the Country, without suggesting any solutions for the refugees.

On the applicability:

According to the information gathered during this research, this decision would be less restrictive than
the 2003 Memorandum and could apply to all asylum seekers and refugees under the UNHCR mandate.

However, according to this decision, asylum seekers would not be expelled within two months of their
application submission to the UNHCR. While the 2003 Memorandum provided “a three-month temporary
residence permit allowing asylum seekers to move freely, pending the decision (...) from the UNHCR”, this decision
from 2010 would only leave two months during which the asylum seeker would only be protected from
deportation, but not from arbitrary arrest and detention.

Moreover, the period for UNHCR to resettle refugees in third countries seems to remain unchanged, i.e.
one year, which is impossible in most cases.

No decision seems to have been made to resolve the fate of a few thousand refugees who can be
resettled in third countries.

Civil society reaction:

The organization Ruwad - Frontiers has published the following comments regarding the report of the
inter-ministerial commission:

“(...) It seems that the report represents a retrograde step in the official policy in addressing the
issue of asylum in Lebanon, it explicitly asserts that “Lebanon is not a country of temporary or
permanent asylum.”This is in contradiction with the spirit of the Lebanese Constitution, which
adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines the right to seek asylum
from oppression.

8
It is important to note that the report did not tackle the root cause of the problem, which is
the issue of detention beyond the sentence, this detention is unconstitutional, and similarly
it has offered no vision to reduce this detention. We also regret that the Committee did not
seize the opportunity of the judicial decisions, which led to the protection of personal freedom
when making its recommendations and suggestions.

We fear that this report is not sufficient to provide legal guarantees against deportation,
noting further that the law does not give the General Security the right to expel, except in
cases where the targeted person poses a threat to the national security only. Thus neither does
it recall by any means Lebanon’s commitment to the principle of non-refoulement and article
3 of the Convention against Torture, which protect people from returning to a country where
they are likely to be subjected to torture.”

9
C. Refugees penalized by their status 

ABERRATION – Interview with a General

The Lebanese authorities do not recognize the refugee
status granted by the UNHCR, however, paradoxically,
they make use of it against its holders.
Each year, Lebanon is allowing hundreds of thousands
of migrant workers to enter its territory; therefore, one
can only wonder why a few thousand refugees arriving
in Lebanon could not, at least, be regularized as foreign
workers.
Security officer
- Refugees are under the responsibility of the
UNHCR, they must wait for the UNHCR to
find them another host country, says a General
Security officer.
- What is their status in Lebanon meanwhile ?
- we asked.

Indeed, a foreigner, since he is “sponsored” by a Lebanese - If they are arrested, and they don’t meet  the
employer, has the opportunity to legally stay and work conditions of the Memorandum with the
in Lebanon, and even to “sponsor” his close family (wife UNHCR, then they will be sent back to their
and children). country.

In the case the worker entered illegally in Lebanon, or
temporarily loses the “sponsor” and stays illegally in
Lebanon, administrative appeal procedures exist in
order to regularize the situation.
Since the refugee status cannot be granted by the
Lebanese authorities, and since the status granted
by the UNHCR has no legal force for the Lebanese
authorities, one might be tempted to believe that
refugees could at least benefit from the same rules as
the other migrants, and that they would be entitled, as
the latter, to an eventual possibility to regularize their
situation in Lebanon by finding a « sponsor ».
- Yet, they cannot go back to their country, this
is the reason why UNHCR granted them the
refugee status.
- We do not recognize the refugee status,
Lebanon is not a country of asylum, answers
the officer.
- Meanwhile, are they allowed to work in
Lebanon like other foreigners if they have a
sponsor?
- Yes, but they must waive their refugee status,
answers the officer.

However, as soon as they have been recognized by - Why would they waive a status that does not
UNHCR as refugees, the Lebanese authorities for exist in the Lebanese law?
the most part prevent these persons from staying
and working in Lebanon in the same manner as any - Because it’s the law.
other migrant worker, or also require that they waive
beforehand a refugee status which yet does not exist in
the Lebanese law.

Therein resides the paradox; if the Lebanese authorities do not recognize the refugee status granted
by the UNHCR, how can they refuse, on the ground of this status, that the person in question has the
same rights as any other foreigner?

In other words, the refugee status granted by the UNHCR is conversely interpreted by the Lebanese
authorities; the refugee status is consequently even worse than the status of illegal migrant.

The UNHCR should « renegotiate a memorandum of understanding with the Lebanese

government.

Such an MOU should extend protection to all UNHCR-recognized refugees, including those
who enter Lebanon legally, and should provide at least for temporary asylum that is not tied
specifically to a UNHCR guarantee of third country resettlement.”

Nadim Houry, Director of Human Rights Watch in Lebanon.

10
II - International obligations of Lebanon towards asylum seekers and
refugees

The Lebanese State stresses on the fact that it is not a party to the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees.
This is specified in the 2003 Memorandum and the report of the 2010 inter-ministerial commission
insists that Lebanon is not a « refuge country ».

Nevertheless the attitude of the Lebanese authorities towards asylum seekers and refugees constitutes
multiple violations of other international commitments of Lebanon.

The Lebanese Constitution provides in its preamble that:

« Lebanon is (…) a founding and active member of the League of Arab States and abides by its
pacts and covenants. Lebanon is also a founding and active member of the United Nations
Organization and abides by its covenants and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Government shall embody these principles in all fields and areas without exception ».

This provision of the preamble of the Lebanese Constitution is endorsed by article 2 of the Lebanese
Civil Code, mentioning the supremacy of international commitments of Lebanon over domestic law. In
other words, even though the Lebanese law is inconsistent with the international commitments of the
country, the latter have legally binding force.

On the other hand, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture, are three major binding international
commitments that Lebanon is abided by in the field of Human Rights, obligating the country to
somehow recognize asylum seekers and refugees status.

A. Why Lebanon did not ratify the 1951 Geneva Convention for refugees?
Although it should be noted that generally speaking,
Lebanon is a country that relatively easily ratifies
international conventions. Even though care is
not taken with the implementation. The Lebanese
authorities’ obsessive fear to see Palestinian refugees
settling in Lebanon prevents the country to ratify this
crucial convention for refugees’ protection.

This firm refusal to see Palestinian refugees permanently

settle in Lebanon finds its roots in confessional and
political motives. Although, as mentioned by the
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) in a
2003 report12 :
“Although the Constitution states, “The abolition of political confessionalism is a basic national
goal and shall be achieved according to a gradual plan”, it seems that neither the political
leaders, nor the Lebanese activists are able to extricate themselves from this religious prism,
at least not towards the Palestinian refugees.”

11
B. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Lebanese Constitution makes direct reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
adopted on December 10, 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly.

However, this declaration states in its article 14.1 that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in
other countries asylum from persecution”.

Of course, this article does not require States to become “countries of refuge”, but it is an absolute
obligation to recognize the existence of persons who “seek asylum” after fleeing from persecution.

UNHCR recalls in this regard that “according to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the right to seek and enjoy asylum is recognized as a basic human right. In exercising this right
asylum-seekers are often forced to arrive at, or enter, a territory illegally.”14

C. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Similarly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted and opened for signature,
ratification and accession by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966, was ratified
by Lebanon on November 3, 1972. This ratification also requires Lebanon to respect the spirit of Article
12.2, which, echoing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that «Everyone is free to leave any
country including his own”.

D. The Convention against torture

16
The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened for
signature, ratification and accession by the United Nations General
Assembly on December 10, 1984, and ratified by Lebanon on October
5, 2000, completes the two texts mentioned above. Indeed, article 3
endorses the principle of non-refoulement.17

«Lebanon has the duty to comply with all its obligations as set out in the Convention against Torture,
including the obligation of non-refoulement of asylum seekers to countries where they are at risk of
torture» insists Nadim Houry, Director of Human Rights Watch Lebanon. «While several Lebanese
courts have delivered important judgments based on Article 3 of the Convention against Torture
and stopping deportations, nevertheless Lebanon must keep on developing a real policy to ensure a
systematic compliance with article 3”.

12
 Major violations committed
against asylum seekers and
refugees in Lebanon
In this section, we will outline the major violations perpetrated against “If there is a gap in the
refugees and asylum seekers, once they are caught in the web of the Lebanese law, it is not
Lebanese judiciary and security systems. the refugees’ problem,
but the government’s
We have tried to list as thoroughly as possible the current practices problem”.
linked to three major identified violations, namely arbitrary detention
(I), torture (II) and deportation of refugees and asylum seekers (III). Nadim Houry, Human
Rights Watch Director in
The following chapter analyses the different responsibilities in the Lebanon
current situation at a political and institutional level.

I - Arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and refugees.

Arbitrary detention.

Deprivation of liberty of migrants must comply not only with national law, but also with international
legislation. It is a fundamental principle of international law that no one should be subjected to arbitrary
detention. International human rights norms, principles and standards define the content of that principle.
Such norms, principles and standards apply to all individuals, including (…) asylum-seeker – United Nations
Special Rapporteur on Migrants Human Rights, Ms. Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro.18

The question of when detention is or becomes arbitrary is not definitively answered by the international
instruments.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights merely provides in article 9 that “No one shall
be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”.  Article 9 paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights is scarcely any clearer:  “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. 
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.  No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such
grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.”

Drawing on the above-mentioned provisions, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
developed criteria enabling to determine the arbitrary character of custody. Drawing on the above-
mentioned provisions, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention developed criteria
enabling to determine when a deprivation of liberty is arbitrary.

Thus, detention is arbitrary since it does not comply with national legislation, other relevant international
standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and relevant international instruments
ratified by Lebanon.

In the case of detention of asylum seekers, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
attempts to determine if the foreign national is enabled to enjoy, or not, guarantees concerning the
person placed in detention (such as the possibility during detention of contacting a lawyer or being
brought promptly in front of a judicial or other relevant authority), and guarantees regarding the
detention measure (for example, custody may in no case be unlimited or of excessive length.)19

13
Detention of asylum seekers and refugees.

There is a presumption against the detention of asylum seekers and/or refugees in Human rights
standards applicable to the detention of asylum seekers and/or refugees.

These standards are based on a wide range of texts, whether binding (international commitments
mentioned above20) or nonbinding, such as guidelines, recommendations, reports, opinions, from
various United Nations bodies, notably the UNHCR.21

If the detention of asylum seekers are under exceptional circumstances (such as in the interests of
public health or even public order) is considered acceptable by all those standards, upon condition
that this possible detention is in compliance with international Human Rights principles and general
standards22, any detention for mere illegal entry and/or stay is considered inacceptable.

For example, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of migrants, Gabriela
Rodriguez Pizarro, declared in 2003 that:

« Administrative detention should never be punitive in nature (…) irregular migrants are not
criminals per se and they should not be treated as such. Detention of migrants on the ground of
their irregular status should under no circumstance be of a punitive nature. (…) Governments
should consider the possibility of progressively abolishing all forms of administrative
detention». 23

Situation in Lebanon.

All individuals, including non citizens, must be protected from arbitrary detention. States are obligated to
respect the Human Rights of detainees, including legal protection, whether or not they are in the territory
of the State in question – United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of non-citizens, David
Weissbrodt.24

It has been noted that generally, when foreigners are arrested in Lebanon for illegal entry and/ or stay,
their refugee status or their will to seek asylum with UNHCR cannot be underscored to the police or the
judge. They are summarily sentenced (within 16 days on average25), most of the time without any legal
assistance or interpreter. As such, these multiple breaches of procedure - although established by the
Lebanese law and Lebanon international commitments – makes the detention of nearly all foreigners
arrested in Lebanon arbitrary.

In the framework of the project “ Multimedia

virtual space for Human Rights”, funded
by the European Union, several research
on Human Rights in Lebanon have been
conducted, including the present research,
as well as an additional one focusing on
arbitrary detention and torture in general
in Lebanon. The present research will
therefore not provide in details all violations
of procedure suffered by nearly all foreigners
arrested and detained in Lebanon, as well
as many Lebanese. This research focuses on
the violations that are peculiar to asylum
seekers and refugees.

In a permanent manner, several refugees

and asylum seekers are arbitrarily detained
in Lebanese prisons and at the General
Security detention center.

14
Their detention can be described as arbitrary in two situations:

1. The legal basis for the arrest contradicts their rights: Mohammad Taher Batili, Iranian
illegal entry and/or stay charges against asylum seekers refugee in Lebanon:
and refugees.
Resettlement in a third country
This applies to refugees and asylum seekers arrested by the or death.
Lebanese authorities for illegal entry or stay whereas they are
registered with the UNHCR or before they could have access to On June 30, Amnesty International
its servies. publicly denounced the situation of

The vast majority of refugees in detention have been “Mohammad Taher Batili, Iranian
arrested on charges of illegal entry/stay in Lebanon26 national and member of Iran’s Arab
minority, (…) is at risk of being
Before the Lebanese judiciary, they will be sentenced to one to forcibly returned from Lebanon
three months imprisonment sometimes in addition to a fine. to Iran. If returned, Amnesty
International fears that he would
be at risk of torture and possibly the
death penalty.”
“Given that Lebanon has not signed the 1951 Refugee convention
and does not have a real mechanism for asylum seekers to gain Amnesty International urgent
the status of refugee for Lebanon, the biggest problems surround action provide further details:
the legal status of refugees. Without proper legal status, they Mohammad Taher Batili, aged 29,
are often treated like illegal migrants and that exposes them is recognized as a refugee by the
to detention”, explains Nadim Houry, Director of Human UN refugee agency, UNHCR. He
Rights Watch in Lebanon. was arrested by members of the
security forces when he was getting
into a car in the Lebanese capital,
Beirut, on 2 June 2010. He produced
A violation of Lebanon’s international commitments a UNHCR document proving his
refugee status but was nevertheless
This type of charges brought against people who have fled arrested on the grounds that he
persecution in their country is a violation of their fundamental entered Lebanon illegally from Syria
rights, notably article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human and was detained in Zahle prison, in
Rights which explicitly states that “everyone has the right to the Bekaa Valley in east Lebanon.
seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” On 26 June he was convicted for
and article 12.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and “irregular entry”, and sentenced to
Political Rights which states that “Everyone shall be free to two months’ imprisonment and
payment of a fine. He faces forcible
leave any country, including his own.”
return to Iran after serving the
sentence.”

During 2010, there was a favorable trend towards the regression of the practice of detention of refugees and asylum
seekers on the sole basis of illegal entry or stay.

Thus, while in April 2010 some 200 refugees and asylum seekers were detained for the mere crime of illegal entry/
stay/work, there were only 65 in October 2010.

31 months of arbitrary detention !
In February 2010, a group of Lebanese
and international Human Rights
organizations called for the immediate
and unconditional release of an Iraqi
refugee illegally detained in Lebanon for
31 months.
2. Their detention is arbitrary because their legal sentence
has already been served.
Deprivation of liberty should never be indefinite. The Human
Rights Committee found that “detention should not continue
beyond the period for which the State can provide appropriate
justification (…) detention may be considered arbitrary, even if
entry was illegal”. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
further states that a maximum period should be set by law and
the custody may in no case be unlimited or of excessive length.
– United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of
migrants, Ms Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro.27

Nearly all foreigners subjected to arrest in Lebanon, whatever the motive, remain in detention despite
the end of their legal sentence and pending their transfer to the General Security.

15
According to a study on prisons published by CLDH in February 201028,, the number of persons detained
despite the end of their legal sentence represents a significant portion (13%) of the prison population.
They are foreigners who have served their sentenced, and who are being arbitrarily detained for months
to several years pending their transfer to the General Security, which is in charge of their deportation or
regularization.

A violation of Lebanon’s international commitments.

Holding persons in detention beyond their legal sentence constitutes a violation of Article 9.129 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates that “no one shall be subjected to
arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with
such procedure as are established by law.”

Moreover, the United Nations Human Rights Committee points out that paragraph 1 of the article
9 is applicable to all deprivations of liberty, whether in criminal cases or in other cases such as […]
immigration control.30

A violation of the Lebanese legislation.

The criminal procedure code explicitly stipulates that “the convicted is released on the last day of his
sentence”31.

Moreover, according to the internal rules of prisons, will incur a penalty of imprisonment of one to
three years32, all guards, man or woman who agree to imprison, actually imprison or keep in custody
a person without any justification or legal documents justifying such detention, or will maintain the
latter in prison after the expiration of his sentence.33

In the case of an expulsion decision issued against a foreigner (whose implementation would be
contrary to Lebanon’s international commitments in the case of an asylum seeker or refugee, as
mentioned above), Article 89 of the Penal Code stipulates that the persons have 15 days to leave the
country “by their own means”. Therefore, detention pending deportation is not a rule according to the
Lebanese law. Moreover, only article 18 of the 1962 Law Regulating the Entry and Stay of Foreigners in
Lebanon and their Exit stipulates that “the Director of the General Security may, with the approval of
the Attorney General, arrest and hold in a state of arrest, the person to be expelled and that, during the
period necessary for the completion of travel formalities”. However, article 18 only applies to persons
whose “presence is seen as a threat to public safety” (article 17 of the 1962 law).

Neverthless based on a circular of the Public Prosecution which stipulates that any foreigner has to
be transferred to the General Security at the end of the sentence. In reality hundreds of foreigners are
stranded each year in the Lebanese prisons, the General Security keeping them awaiting without any
legal basis for months to years in prisons, and sometimes in the detention center.

In the case of refugees and asylum seekers, “their detention often ends up becoming arbitrary after they finish
serving their sentence and cannot go home” indicates Nadim Houry. This unlimited arbitrary detention
without any legal grounds aims at forcing them to accept to sign their “voluntary return” in their country
of origin, and makes this type of arbitrary detention a form of psychological torture34. “The alternative to
refoulement cannot be keeping someone in jail, but providing them with proper legal status” adds Nadim Houry.

This practice of arbitrary detention beyond the end of their sentence during 2010 has constantly concerned some 35
refugees and asylum seekers registered with the UNHCR.

16
II - Violations of the Convention against Torture in the case of asylum
seekers and refugees in Lebanon

A. The practice of torture against asylum seekers and refugees

According to the Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment,35

« torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,
punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or Is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of
a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising
only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. »

Prolonged administrative detention is a form of torure

Noticing the pain that people suffered under administrative detention, CLDH36 addressed the following
question: Can this indefinite detention without any legal basis and recourse available be qualified as
psychological torture?

The Convention against torture defines torture according to three criteria:

1. The kind of suffering inflicted (grave suffering, whether physical or mental)

2. The notion of intentionality (notably with the purpose to put pressure on the person)

3. The responsibility of state authorities (imposed by a public official)

The Convention specifies that the term “torture” does not A psychological study conducted by
include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or CLDH on persons of foreign nationality
incidental to lawful sanctions. subjected to prolonged administrative
detention, shows the psychological
Comparative analysis of the qualification of torture and the and physical consequences of such a
practice of illegal administrative detention: detention.

- The notion of acute mental suffering is present in persons Due to this practice, persons convicted
detained in illegal administrative detention. to one to two months of imprisonment
for violation of immigration laws,
- Intentionality of the suffering also appears in these remain in detention several months
cases, since the goal is to force people who do not wish to several years after serving their
to leave Lebanon to sign their consent to return to their sentence, in inhumane conditions,
country of origin (including if their life is in danger, or if without knowing the length of their
they believe so). detention. The aim being is sometimes
to make them sign a “voluntary return”
- The perpetrator of this intentional suffering inflicted to in their country of origin.
the person is indeed the Lebanese State.
Among the psychological disorders
- This suffering does not result from a legitimate that these people present:
punishment because it affects people whose legal − Insomnia
sanction is served. − Loss of appetite
− Constant fear, anxiety
In these circumstances, it would appear that the systematic − Memory loss
practice of illegal and prolonged detention of foreigners, − Depression
which inflicts severe psychological suffering in order to make − Cognitive disruption
them sign their “voluntary” deportation, can be described − Suicidal thoughts
as “psychological torture” under the Convention against
Torture.
17
Conditions of detention amounting to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

Custody must be effected in a public establishment specifically intended for this purpose; when, for practical
reasons, this is not the case, the asylum-seeker or immigrant must be placed in premises separate from
those for persons imprisoned under criminal law– United Nations Working Group on arbitrary detention.37

During this research, we have attempted to evaluate the conditions of detention that are suffering
refugees and asylum seekers go through, both in Lebanese prisons and at the General Security detention
center, located in a former underground parking in Adlieh Beirut.

38
Lebanese prisons falling under the ISF control

The Committee notes with concern that asylum-seekers detained only

because of their illegal entry or presence are often held together with persons
detained as common criminals, and reiterates that this is undesirable and
must be avoided whenever possible – UNHCR Executive Committee.39

In general, Lebanese prisons falling under the ISF control are antiquated, overcrowded and often located
in buildings that were not originally designed to accommodate people in number.

This results in inhumane conditions, which we will not go into detail in this report, as these conditions
have already been previously studied.40

We raised our concerns about the specific situation of refugees and Acts of despair…
asylum seekers in such a context. As we have already mentioned
above, they are already mostly victims of arbitrary detention and Throughout this research, acts of
torure. despair among refugees in Lebanese
prisons have been reported.
In addition to these violations, a number of elements make their
conditions even more difficult. Firstly, because of their status as Suicide attempts, rebellions, hunger
strikes; in all Lebanese regions,
foreigners, these persons usually have no family or relatives in
refugees and asylum seekers
Lebanon, therefore no visits, which means they lack moral and/
regularly trying, usually without
or material support which is essential if we consider the human success, to alert the public opinion
situation in theLebanese prisons. on their desperate situation.

In the case of Mohammad Taher Batila,

Iranian refugee previously mentioned In addition, asylum seekers and refugees are subjected to
in this report, Amnesty International psychological pressure on behalf of their respective embassies
reports the following: to make them accept their voluntary return to their countries
of origin. At the ISF facilities, embassies can even investigate,
“Following his detention in Zahle prison,
or intimidate their citizens (see box).
officials from Iran’s embassy in Lebanon
twice interrogated Mohammad Taher
Batili. They interrogated him at length
about his father’s political activities
and that of other members of Iran’s Arab
minority in Syria and Lebanon. They
threatened him that other inmates in the
prison would harm him.”

18
The General Security detention center

At the General Security detention center, where all the foreigners are transferred at the end of their
sentence, the conditions of detention are in total contradiction with any humanitarian standard.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC) and, where appropriate, duly authorized non-governmental organizations must be
allowed access to the places of custody - Working Group on Arbitrary Detention41.

The Committee recommends that States (…) ensure that conditions in centers for refugees and asylum-
seekers meet international standards–Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination concerning the
discrimination against non citizens.42

Thus, the detention center is located in an underground passage beneath a highway interchange
in which refugees and asylum seekers are kept in 13 underground cages without ever seeing
the sunlight or breathing the fresh air for months and sometimes more than once a year.

The food seems to be catastrophic, composed mainly of mortadella, moldy bread, and potatoes.

Visits to people in detention are conducted under the close supervision of the General Security, but are
not allowed for lawyers and NGOs.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (hereinafter ICRC) and the UNHCR seem to access the
detention center only sporadically, upon their specific request to the General Security to meet with one
of the detainees. Only one branch of Caritas, named Caritas - Migrant Center, accesses permanent, on
the condition of its full cooperation with the General Security43.

On March 5, 2010, CLDH was
informed that several refugees
arbitrarily detained at the General
Security retention center for several
months had begun an indefinite
hunger strike to protest against their
conditions of detention, and demand
their immediate release.
On March 17, 2010, out of desperation,
two Iraqi refugees arbitrarily
detained at the General Security
retention center were alleged to have
violently beaten their heads on the
wall.
Refugees arriving at the General Security detention center are
often exhausted from prolonged detention in Lebanese prisons
in inhuman conditions.
“No one hears us ... How long shall we remain locked up? We will all
kill ourselves, we cannot take it anymore!” said a group of refugees
in a message sent to CLDH.
“Just imagine going to prison while your only crime is to have fled
your country! Imagine spending several months in an underground
parking, in cages, without seeing the sunlight, without any
occupation and without knowing when you will get out of there!
Here, days are a hundred times longer than outside ...”they
added.44

Other methods of torture reported

Psychological Torture Imprisoned for three months in

underground cages that serve as a
As indicated above, refugees and asylum seekers in detention
detention center at the General Security,
suffer a series of violations against their rights, which mostly
Ammar Al Zubeidi, an Iraqi refugee, had
amount to mistreatment, and even to psychological torture. phoned CLDH several times, desperate
and exhausted, before finally being
Already being in a very difficult situation. Their situation
forbidden to contact the organization.
becomes worse in most cases when the General Security
decides that persons in detention must sign their “voluntary CLDH had managed to meet him briefly
repatriation” to their country of origin. By signing, the person on April 12, 2010, before General Security
has to affix their fingerprints on the document in question. officers. He was showing signs of severe
Refugees and asylum seekers who resist are often subjected physical and moral deterioration; he
to humiliation, ranging from insults to physical searches, or even was sallow-skinned and confused.
complete removal of clothing. They are often subjected to repeated
interrogations, and threats...

As also noted above, most of them end up being cruelly affected psychologically.

19
Physical Torture

It should also be noted that other methods similar to physical torture, which would take place in
the hands of the General Security have been reported. These include beatings and placement in solitary
confinement for several minutes to several hours in a tiny cubbyhole in which one feels suffocated.

An Iraqi refugee recognized by the UNHCR reports the following:

“At the General Security detention center, I was placed four times in solitary confinement in a
cell of 1m by 1m. The first time, we were two locked in! The officer told me that I should return
to Iraq. When I refused, he pushed me into that isolation cell with another prisoner, a Sudanese
.... We were left there for one and a half hour. The second time, they put me in that isolation cell
without telling me why, for an hour. When they took me out, General Security agents told me,
“we’ve prepared your ticket you’re going to Baghdad. “ After I refused to travel, I was placed again
in solitary confinement for 45 minutes, then another day for two and! In this cubbyhole, you feel
suffocated. You feel you’re going to die. On several occasions, I was slapped and insulted.“

B. Violation of article 3 of the Convention against torture

If lawfully deprived of their liberty, (foreigners) shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the
inherent dignity of their person – Human Rights Committee45.

The Executive Committee (…) reaffirmed the fundamental importance of the principle of non refoulement - -
of persons who may be subjected to persecution if returned to their country of origin irrespective of whether
or not they have been formally recognized as refugees – Executive Committee of the UNHCR46

All the above mentioned practices against asylum seekers and refugees constitute violations of the
Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, ratified
by Lebanon in 2000, particularly article 3.

Article 3 of the United Nations Convention against torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, adopted on December 10, 1984, stipulates:

a) “No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there
are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”

b) “For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall
take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State
concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.”

When deporting by force asylum seekers and refugees to their countries of origin. Where they are at
risk of torture, and even death, the Lebanese authorities commit flagrant abuse of this treaty provision
which aims to prevent the practice of torture against persons who have fled their country of origin, by
protecting them from being deported from their country of refuge.

In 2010, dozens of refugees and asylum seekers have been sent back from Lebanon to their countries of origin in
violation of article 3 of the Convention.

For this research, we monitored four cases of Iraqi refugees recognized by the UNHCR, whom the
General Security had decided to send back to Iraq.

20
 - Attempt to deport Saad Muhammad Ismail, Iraqi refugee recognized by the UNHCR

On March 8, 2000, having learned about the imminent deportation to Iraq of Saad Muhammad Ismail, 54 years
old, Iraqi refugee recognized by the UNHCR, arbitrarily detained in Lebanon for two and a half years, we went to
Beirut international airport where we witnessed a forced deportation attempt of this person. Mr Ismail arrived
there, barefoot, handcuffed and dragged by two agents of the General Security who were attempting to force him
to enter the boarding area. The deportation of Mr. Ismail seems to have been unsuccessful due to his protests, and
the protests of the organizations and officials, he was finally driven back to prison.

- Deportation of Ali Abdel Hilal Miri, Iraqi refugee recognized by the UNHCR

On March 30, 2010, Ali Abdel Hilal Miri, Iraqi refugee, arbitrarily detained in Lebanon for illegal entry from Syria,
was deported by land to Syria, where he was handed over to the Syrian authorities, and then deported to Iraq. After
further investigation, we found out that this refugee had been informed that he was brought to an interview for a
resettlement in a third country, in order to avoid resistance to deportation.

- ‘Voluntary’ repatriation of Ammar Al Zubeidi, Iraqi refugee recognized by UNHCR

On April 23, 2010, Ammar Al Zubeidi, 35, an Iraqi refugee detained arbitrarily for a year and a half for illegal entry
into Lebanon was expelled to Iraq by airplane. In a state of psychological exhaustion, he had apparently finally
accepted to sign his ‘voluntary repatriation’. The UNHCR and the lawyers having no access to the detention center,
he had not been informed in time that the interview for resettlement was scheduled on May 19th.

- Forced deportation of Ala As Sayad, Iraqi refugee recognized by the UNHCR

On November 10, 2010, Ala As Sayad, 24, Iraqi refugee recognized by the UNHCR has allegedly been deported to
Iraq after two years of arbitrary detention in Lebanon. Yet the Lebanese Justice had ordered his immediate release
in March 2010. Led at 6am from the underground General Security detention center (where he had been languishing
for several months) to Beirut international airport, in pajamas and without his personal effects, Ala As Sayad was
allegedly placed in detention at the airport . He had been resisting for several months the pressure exerted by the
General Security to make him sign a “voluntary” repatriation to Iraq. He had always refused to sign this document
and had duly notified the officer of the General Security about it at the airport. At his insistence and refusal to
return to his country, seven General Security agents reportedly severely beat him on the head and all over his body
until he lost consciousness. He was then allegedly brought to the plane in a semi-comatose state.

Amnesty International also reported on September 24, 2010 the deportation attempt of a Sudanese
refugee to his country of origin where he would face arbitrary arrest, torture and other ill-treatment,
and possibly enforced disappearance. The individual had been detained in Lebanon since January 2010.

« Muhammad Babikir Adam is being held at a General Security office in the ‘Adliyeh area of the capital Beirut.
Despite his refugee status there was an attempt to deport him last week, but he refused to leave the country and
was reportedly beaten. According to sources in Lebanon, General Security officials then forced him to sign with his
fingerprints a document that, being illiterate, he could not read; no lawyer was present. Amnesty International
does not have information about the content of the document, but fears that it is part of an attempt to forcibly
return him to Sudan and make it look like he agreed to being deported. ».47

21
II - Violations of the rights of asylum seekers and refugees: for what
purpose and ‘result’?

“Detention of asylum-seekers (...), as part of a policy to deter future asylum-seekers, or to dissuade those
who have commenced their claims from pursuing them, is contrary to the norms of refugee law”- UNHCR
Revised Guidelines on Applicable criteria and standards relating to the detention of asylum seekers.48

The prolonged detention beyond the end of the sentence of asylum-seekers and refugees is intended
to make them sign their ‘voluntary repatriation’, in order to allow the General Security to proceed to
their deportation without taking into consideration the fears that legitimate their asylum-seeker or
refugees status.

Politically speaking, arbitrary arrests and detentions of foreigners (whether or not under UNHCR
protection) aim at suppressing and preventing illegal immigration.

In the case of refugees and asylum seekers, the intentionality of the Lebanese authorities is not only
extremely visible, but also appears to be completely inefficient in terms of regulation of the refugees’
influx in Lebanon.

The objective of the Lebanese authorities is clear. If we assume that there are in Lebanon 9,130 asylum
seekers and refugees registered with UNCHR, residing illegally in the country. We have to wonder why
around 35 of them, i.e. less than 0,5% of them, remained in arbitrary detention throughout 2010. It is
therefore clear that given the number the Lebanese authorities would be in a position to arrest many
more refugees and asylum-seekers for illegal entry/stay but do not for the obvious reason that the
official are aware of the arbitrary nature of such arrests. Mass arrests of refugees and asylum seekers
would inevitably remind the practices of the former regime when General Security was placing agents
in front of UNHCR offices in order to arrest and expel asylum seekers and refugees.

Considering the conditions, why keep hostage a small group of refugees and asylum seekers?

The sole possible answer to this question is this famous will of the Lebanese state to regulate illegal
immigration, using means in contradiction with its international commitments.

This intentional practice, as illustrated in a 2010 report on arbitrary detention and torture written in
the framework of the present project49, seems however to have a result inversely proportional to that
expected.

Regarding Iraqi refugees, human rights violations perpetrated against them by the Lebanese authorities,
paradoxically, encourage their illegal entry into Lebanon. Indeed, because of the practice of arbitrary
detention and deportation against them, the UNHCR is obliged to consider Lebanon as a country at
risk for the refugees and thus accelerate the process of refugee resettlement in third countries, such as
in Europe or America.

Several Iraqi refugees in detention interviewed during this research, were asked the question: “Would it
not have been better to stay in Syria, rather than coming to Lebanon where you are considered illegal?”
They responded: “We took the risk of entering Lebanon illegally, knowing that we would be at risk of
being arrested, because in Lebanon, it is more likely to be resettled in another country, and faster...”

The message that seems to circulate among the refugees fleeing Iraq is that it is more interesting to take
refuge in Lebanon than in Syria or Jordan, given that in Lebanon it is more likely to be quickly resettled
into a third country. The Lebanese authorities would therefore be well advised to respect the rights
of the refugees by ceasing to arrest them for illegal entry, to arbitrarily detain and deport them. Thus
Lebanon would no longer be considered a hostile country, and therefore an opportunity for refugees.
Not to mention the international assistance Lebanon could benefit from by helping refugees, who
anyway, will enter its territory.

22
 Position of various relevant
actors in the field of
immigration and asylum
Throughout this research, CLDH has tried to clarify the position of the various actors, from the civil
society, but also political ones, relevant or theoretically relevant in the field of refugees and asylum
seekers, namely:

- UNHCR, the only relevant body to assess whether an individuals have a well-founded fear when
asserting that they cannot return to their countries of origin. What is the UNHCR attitude vis-à-vis
the refugees and asylum seekers, especially during detention? What protection does it provide for
refugees and asylum seekers? What relation does it maintain with the Lebanese authorities?

- The Ministry of Interior and its security services. What is the position of the Ministry regarding
refugees and asylum seekers? How does the Ministry interact with other official actors and civil
society, and what control does it exert over the concerned security services?

- The Lebanese judiciary that comes into play as soon as refugees or asylum seekers are arrested,
tried, detained or deported.

- And finally the civil society, its role vis-à-vis the refugees and asylum seekers and drifts that may
arise from its relations with official authorities.

I - UNHCR – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was established on December 14,
1950 by the United Nations General Assembly.50

UNHCR Mission.

The mission of the UNHCR is the following51 :

“The High Commissioner for Refugees is mandated by the United Nations to lead and coordinate international
action for the worldwide protection of refugees and the resolution of refugee problems.

UNHCR’s primary purpose is to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees. In its efforts to achieve this
objective, the Office strives to ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in
another State, and to return home voluntarily.“

Situation of the institution in Lebanon.

On the UNHCR official website, the Lebanese situation is described as follows52 :

«The political and security situation prevailing in Lebanon and the surrounding region remains unstable. Although
the country hosts refugees, its legal framework is currently not in their favor.

Refugees who work illegally are often exploited, whereas detention and deportation, although decreasing, remain
major issues of concern.

(...) In 2003, the UNHCR and the Lebanese Government signed a Memorandum of Understanding which stipulates
that refugees and asylum seekers will be tolerated, but only for a limited period, pending their resettlement or
voluntary return.

23
(...) Due to the high cost of living because of the non-free public services, refugees are also in need of physical
protection and assistance to survive and exercise their rights.

The UNHCR ensures the determination of the status of individuals who are not immediately considered (prima
facie) as refugees. The Memorandum of understanding is strictly applied in the case of non-Iraqi refugees; the latter
must be reinstalled very quickly. “

Current situation.

The Executive Committee invites (…) the High Commissioner (…) to take all necessary measures to ensure
that refugees are protected from arbitrary detention and violence – HCR Executive Committee53.

The High Commissioner António Guterres expressed in June 2010 his concern regarding the situation of
refugees, and stressed that UNHCR committed to finding durable solutions for the registered refugees,
“including resettlement” in a third country. 54

On October 1, 2010, CLDH condemned the situation in these terms;

In recent weeks, CLDH (Lebanese Center for Human Rights) has been informed of several cases of
refugees being held in inhumane conditions in the General Security’s underground detention center to
compel them to accept their return to their country of origin despite their UNHCR recognized refugee
status. It should be noted that those detained, in most cases arbitrarily - because they have already
served their sentence – have no regular contacts with either the UNHCR or any human rights NGO once
placed in the detention center.

CLDH has requeste UNHCR to take the necessary measures to protect the persons within UNHCR’s
mandate, including finding effective solutions, both immediate and long term, with the Lebanese
authorities.55

The role of the UNHCR in detention places.

During this research CLDH has noted that the role of UNHCR concerning refugees and asylum seekers
in detention is as follows:

- first to ensure the determination of the status of persons who wish to seek asylum,

- secondly to follow up with the persons in detention the determination of their refugee status,

- and to seek solutions, either a resettlement in a third country, or release in Lebanon while waiting
for a solution, or the return to their country of origin.

The first problem arises at the time of the arrest of asylum seekers and refugees. They often have a
certificate proving that they are under UNHCR protection. However, CLDH has noted that the refugee
or asylum seekers certificate does not indicate any emergency phone number (mobile phone) that
would verify the authenticity of the certificate, or to assist on information about the person, and to
show some leniency vis-à-vis the illegal entry and / or residence of the person on the Lebanese territory.

In many cases, refugees and asylum-seekers arrested for illegal entry or stay, and sometimes for other
charges are brought before justice, most of the time without the UNHCR being aware of it. Again, in
emergency cases, the lack of communication between the judiciary and the UNHCR may sometimes
prevent the judge from understanding and avoiding to issue a deportation order.

In prisons, CLDH noticed, during a research conducted in 2009 on the legal situation of the prison
population56, that approximately 14% of the men arrested in Lebanon for illegal entry were detained
before having access to UNHCR services. Despite their will to submit an application for asylum. This
situation reveals that UNHCR does not systematically review the situation of all foreigners arrested, in
order to identify any potential asylum seekers.

Contacted by CLDH in 2009, a representative of the UNHCR has reported concerns of UNHCR to see
all foreigners arrested for illegal entry applying for asylum. Yet in 2009, CLDH has noticed, for example,
that 84% of these persons wished to return to their country of origin. Further problem raised was the
limited human resources available to the UNHCR to visit all prisons in Lebanon.
24
Given these conditions, there seems to be a strong discrimination in the determination of the refugee
status since some potential asylum seekers have no access to UNHCR. Even though this situation
is mainly due to the position of the Lebanese authorities which make arrests without considering
the situation, it is also incumbent upon the UNHCR, which does not have a systematic approach to
identifying the asylum seekers and refugees.

If the Lebanese authorities desire to deport by force a refugee to his/her country of origin, UNHCR does
not respond. For example by sending a representative to the airport or strongly protesting.

Some issues raised by the refugees and asylum seekers in regards to UNHCR are extremely difficult to
assess. For example, most of refugees and asylum seekers complained of not being sufficiently informed
on the progress of their asylum applications or resettlement process. However, it is understood that it
cannot be required from the UNHCR representatives to visit more frequently those detainees whose
files are pending. But one cannot also ask for asylum seekers and refugees to be more “patient” while
they are languishing in Lebanese prisons, most of the time in alarming conditions.

Other problems have been proven , which are listed below and are of concern:

- Almost all asylum seekers and refugees in detention had no document attesting their registration
within the UNHCR. This made it difficult for nongovernmental organizations working on the cases,
and was allowing the General Security to accentuate pressure on asylum seekers and refugees, while
arguing that they were not registered with UNHCR services, or even that their application had been
rejected. Given the vulnerable situation of the asylum seekers and refugees in detention, such claims
from the General Security asserts tremendous stress to the detainees’ capacity to resist torture and
pressures they suffer.

- Another problem could be related to the way the situation is presented to refugees and asylum
seekers by UNHCR representatives during their visits to prisons. One cannot say with certainty
whether the problem actually comes from UNHCR, or if the message is misunderstood by the
refugees. Still, it has been noticed on many occasions that refugees recognized by the UNHCR were
convinced that their status had been withdrawn by UNHCR, stating that “the UNHCR told me that I
was no longer a refugee and that I must return to my country”. In fact, these persons were indeed refugees,
whose resettlement in a third country was in progress. Needless to say that such certainty on people
already suffering from arbitrary detention consequently increase their despair and encourage them
to sign, either through their embassy or the General Security a “voluntary return” to their country of
origin.

Finally, during 2010, UNHCR allegedly did not have regular access to the General Security detention
center. In a letter dated September 4, 2010, the Minister of Interior Ziyad Baroud mentions that “there is
within the department of investigation and procedures (of the General Security) a permanent office of
Caritas as well as another one for United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees”.

Yet all the information gathered during this research show that UNHCR representatives are only allowed
access to detainees upon the General Security authorization, which seems to show no willingness
to help asylum seekers and refugees in detention. The statement of the detention center’s director,
collected by CLDH in 2009 during its in-depth research on prisons, is clear evidence of this: during the
interview, the latter declared that the General Security did not inform the UNHCR when a person in
detention expressed the will to seek asylum.

This raises the second question: What measures are being taken by the UNHCR to change the situation
of asylum seekers and refugees in detention in Lebanon?

25
Relations of the UNHCR with the Lebanese authorities.

It has emerged during this research, primarily through interviews

with officials from the Office of the Minister of Interior, that the “Relations between the UNHCR
main representative of the UNHCR in its relations with the Lebanese and the Lebanese authorities
authorities is a security service, namely the General Security. Yet, the are not at the right level (...).
General Security is merely an executive body, which theoretically The General Security is a
has no prerogative to reform and should be strictly controlled by the security service that addresses
Ministry of Interior57. this issue in terms of security
when the only possible
The dialogue should be established exclusively between UNHCR approach is humanitarian.
and the Ministry of Interior, responsible to enforce its decisions UNHCR’s relations with the
by the General Security, under its authority. Yet, for reasons that Lebanese authorities should be
could not be establish, the dialogue seems to take place almost at a governmental level that
exclusively between UNHCR and the General Security. Besides, on is to say with the Ministry of
the profile of operations 2010 - Lebanon of the UNHCR website, the Interior, and not with one of its
Directorate General of the General Security appears to be the only security services.”
government agency partner of UNHCR58. Wadih Al-Asmar
This has disastrous consequences on the evolution of the situation, Secretary General of the
or rather its lack of evolution. Indeed, it is not possible that the Lebanese Center for Human
practice and legislation regarding asylum seekers and refugees Rights (CLDH)
develops favorably if the UNHCR proposals are submitted to
the government after having passed through the «filter» of a
security service whose primary mission is the repression of illegal
immigration.

Even worse, it seems that no emergency situations motivate the UNHCR to go further to contact the
relevant governmental authorities, notably the Ministry of Interior which for example could argue the
fact that a person about to be deported holds refugee status, or will be expelled although he/she is
about to be resettled to a third country.

As explained earlier, when UNHCR was informed by nongovernmental organizations of deportations,

UNCHR does not seem to have ​​contacted the Ministry of Interior.

This infringes one of UNHCR’s institutional objectives which is, “in its efforts to protect refugees and seek
solutions to their problems (...) works closely with governments”.

Obviously, the position of the UNHCR can be explained by the fact that it is not always more efficient
to inform the Ministry of Interior, and that such initiative could compromise the relations between the
UNHCR and the General Security.

Relations of the UNHCR with non-governmental organizations

During this research, UNHCR was not particularly loquacious regarding the files of persons under its
mandate, and has not agreed to disclose any information concerning its relation with the Lebanese
authorities.

CLDH has requested UNHCR to collaborate with Human Rights organizations, which are in a better
position to lobby for an in-depth reform in Lebanon, as one of the UNHCR institutional objectives is to
work closely with non-governmental organizations.

UNHCR has not responded.

26
What are the main obstacles to the work of the UNHCR in Lebanon?

It is quite evident that UNHCR does not operate in Lebanon in a favorable environment due to the
non-recognition by the Lebanese authorities of the refugee status. However, it can be assumed that
a United Nations body would have the authority to foster the Lebanese authorities to enforce all the
international commitments they have ratified.

Yet-this is not the case. Without any explanation from UNHCR, it seems that UNHCR only interacts
with the Lebanese authorities through a security service and is not willing to collaborate with Human
Rights organizations to change the legislation.

This raises the following question: Is UNHCR facing pressure from the General Security, which would
explain the reluctance to cooperate with the Ministry of the Interior and Human Rights organizations?

This question is left open; it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Interior to investigate.

27
II - Ministry of Interior

At the beginning of this research, CLDH was hopeful that the position of Interior Minister Ziyad Baroud,
who had declared on March 12 “having frozen any forced deportation of refugees and decided to implement
all judiciary decisions of release”, represented a hope to reach a positive outcome of the issue of asylum
seekers and refugees in Lebanon

Although their numbers decreased,unfortunately several refugees having been granted judiciary
decisions of release remained in detention and forced deportations were continuing at year end.

Deportations of Refugees “Ziyad Baroud fostered the

Lebanese government to meet its
Each time the deportation of a refugee was brought to knowledge, responsibility vis-à-vis the issue
CLDH contacted the Minister’s office which declared that their office of asylum seekers and refugees,
had not been informed of such a decision and immediately intervened but has not taken control of
with the General Security, successfully or not. the General Security. This is an
internal political choice: Ziad
CLDH therefore interpreted the situation as follows: the General Baroud did not want to offend
Security was taking, in spite of the Minister’s decision, the initiative anyone, as a consequence the
of expelling refugees and asylum seekers to their country of origin, in General Security, which enjoys a
political cover, seems to do what it
disregard of the existing fears regarding their security or even their
wants and considers it is qualified
lives, in contradiction with Lebanon international commitments.
for immunity from the directives
CLDH unfortunately finally understood that the Ministry of Interior of the Ministry of Interior. “
was not really willing to engage in real reforms that would help Wadih Al-Asmar, Secretary
refugees avoid being victims of violations, harming their rights as General of the Lebanese Center
well as their physical and psychological integrity in the name of laws for Human Rights (CLDH)
that should not apply to their case.

The basis of the reform would effectively put an end to all forced deportations of refugees to their
country of origin. To grant UNHCR sufficient delays to resettle the refugees in third countries and to
address the issue of the refugees who cannot be resettled in a responsible manner, that is, by proposing
alternatives.

On the other hand, in a letter sent to the Council of Ministers on une 5, 2010, regarding ‘the deportation
of foreigners detained for various crimes beyond the end of their sentence’, the Minister of Interior
proposed that UNHCR provide the Lebanese authorities with its evaluation of the possibility for each
refugee to be granted a visa by a third country. The Minister continues, adding that he recommends the
General Security to deliver to the refugees ‘an exceptional three-month residency permit, renewable
for three additional months, and for a maximum duration of one year, in order to allow UNHCR to try
obtaining for them visas to third countries’.

These recommendations of the Minister seem to have been approved by a resolution of the Council of
Ministers dated September 7, 2010.

The durations proposed by the Minister for the resettlement of the refugees in third countries are not
only insufficient but this position might be interpreted by the General Security as a ministerial green light
that would endorse decisions of deportation - taken in a discretionary manner by the General Director
of the General Security, the concerned refugee has been on the Lebanese territory for more than a year.
The beating by the General Security of two refugees who were refusing to travel, Muhammad Babikir
Adam, Sudanese, mid-September, and Ala As Sayad, Iraqi, in November59, might confirm these fears.

Non Implementation of the Judiciary Decisions.

This report highlights the detention of foreigners (among them refugees and asylum seekers) is
illegal beyond the end of their sentence, not only from the perspective of Lebanon’s international
commitments, but also with regard to the Lebanese law.

28
It is the responsibility of the Ministry of Interior to release court orders implemented which concern
both the ISF (in charge of the prisons) and the General Security, in charge of dealing with the files of
asylum seekers and refugees.

Although at least 18 court rulings ordered the immediate release of refugees on the Lebanese territory
in 2009 and 2010, it has to be noted that in reality a second court order should never be waited to
release the foreigners at the end of their sentence, even worse when no deportation order has been
taken by the Judiciary.

Asked about the reasons why court orders, namely the release at the end of the sentence and/or the
implementation of release court orders, are not implemented, the Ministry of Interior explains that
these measures cannot be taken since the concerned foreigners do not have papers’ (!). While the
deliverance of residency permits falls exclusively under the responsibility of the Ministry of Interior
services, the questioned representative of the Ministry stated that ‘it is up to the General Prosecutor at
the Court of Cassation to order the releases and this situation falls under his sole responsibility’. After
verification it could not be fully understood what the Prosecutors role had to do with the release court
orders. As long as the Prosecutor does not oppose them (which do not seem to be the case).

Lack of Effective Control of Security Institutions in charge of Refugees and Asylum seekers.

CLDH has noted that in general the Ministry of Interior systematically refers in its correspondence
regarding foreigners to the General Directorate of General Security as its unique source of information.

However CLDH could note several times, for example, that the information given to the Ministry of
Interior by the General Security (which is subordinated to the Ministry) were intentionally distorted
in order to back up the arbitrary decisions of the General Director of General Security, the institution
claiming (for example) that the person to be deported was not holding a UNHCR refugee status, which
appeared to be inaccurate.

Nevertheless the structure itself of the Interior Ministry, as presented on the Ministry’s official website60,
includes the Internal Security Forces and the General Security. Given the circimstances, how would
these two institutions escape the direct control of the Minister office?

Asked about the control of the Ministry over the institutions under its responsibility, and notably the
General Security, a representative of the Minister insisted on the fact that the security institutions were
under the Council of Ministers’control and not under the Interior Ministry’s.

In spite of our efforts, we could not understand this answer.

A Ministry that does not assume its responsibilities.

During this research it appeared that the Ministry of Interior was not intending and /or did not have
prerogatives to launch a reform in favor of refugees and asylum seekers whose rights are systematically
flouted in Lebanon. No real initiative seems to be taken to effectively prevent arbitrary detention,
deportations of refugees to countries of origin, or to put in place a systematic implementation of court
orders, neither to control the services under its jurisdiction.

This situation is extremely frustrating since, without speaking of an in-depth reform, a wide range
of small initiatives could be taken by the Ministry of Interior if the will existed to protect the rights
of asylum seekers and refugees. These proposals that CLDH has already presented to the Ministry of
Interior, can be found in the ‘recommendations’ part of the present report.

29
III - Justice

Expulsion decisions against asylum seekers and refugees.

Even though the Lebanese law is not in favor of refugees and asylum seekers, considered by law as
illegal immigrants, the Judiciary is nevertheless entitled to base its rulings on Lebanon’s international
commitments, notably on article 3 of the Convention against torture that should allow judges to
abstain from issuing expulsion decisions at the end of the sentence, since the person is registered with
the UNHCR services or fear returning to her/his country of origin.

Unfortunately many Lebanese judges do not take into consideration Lebanon’s international
commitments, arguing that they are not enforceable since it has not been incorporated into the Lebanese
Penal Code. However, applying article 3 of the Convention against torture as CLDH has suggested, would
simply consist in not applying a legislative provision contrary to Lebanon’s international commitments.

CLDH has noted that in numerous cases, the Lebanese judges, although informed of the person’s fear
of returning to his country of origin, and a refugee card was presented, combine the sentence with an
expulsion decision against asylum seekers and refugees.

Non-access to lawyer at the detention center

Governments should take measures to ensure (…) migrants in detention shall be assisted, free of charge,
by legal counsel - United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of migrants, Gabriela Rodríguez
Pizarro.61

Prohibiting lawyers’ access to the General Security detention center gives this place an arbitrary
character.

All international standards62, as well as Lebanese domestic law, recall the fundamental rights of all
detainees to have access to a lawyer, specifically in the case of asylum seekers and/or refugees. Thus,
the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention recalls that concerning asylum seekers whose detention is
considered necessary by the authorities, should be examined the possibility to access to legal counseling
and representation.

Aliens seeking immigration or asylum are ill equipped to pursue effectively their legal rights or remedies
that they might have under the applicable legislation. They would invariably suffer from material
constraints or constraints of language disabling them from representing their cause effectively. Many
might not be informed of the legal remedies available.63

Release court orders: a significant breakthrough

At least 18 judiciary decisions ordering the immediate release in Lebanon issued between 2009 and 2010
by the Lebanese judiciary in favor of refugees recognized by the UNHCR, who remained in detention
following the end of their sentence.64

Based on the Lebanese Constitution, notably its preamble (which commits the country to comply with
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its international commitments) and its article 865, these
judgments recall the General Security prerogatives and abuses in the framework of the current law.

These courts’ decisions followed a series of complaints against the Lebanese state by some refugees in
detention; it constitutes an admirable case-law testifying the arbitrary character of prolonged detention
of refugees, as the Lebanese judiciary considers that “ the General Security exceeded its administrative
role”, and that it constitutes “an infringement of personal liberties that falls under the Penal Justice”.

Most of these rulings were not implemented and refugees were maintained in detention for several
months waiting to be released on the basis of a possible resettlement in a third country or were deported
upon a decision of the General Security.

30
In some cases, the Judiciary did not have time to take a decision, as the General Security had already
deported the refugee in question. This is the case of Ali Abdel Hilal Miri, mentioned in this report,
deported on March 30, 2010 from Lebanon, whereas his judgment was supposed to be issued on April
13, i.e. two weeks after. Indeed, he had submitted a complaint regarding his arbitrary detention on
January 5, 2009.

31
IV - Civil Society

In general Civil society has played an important role in

Aside from state institutions, UNHCR and ICRC,
several civil society organizations play a crucial role
in monitoring the situation of asylum seekers and
refugees in detention.66 These organizations are Human
Rights organizations, and one organization essentially
humanitarian, namely Caritas.
In general, the issue of arbitrary detention, torture and
deportations is being constantly monitored by Human
Rights organizations that most of the times benefit from
satisfying media coverage.
However, the major obstacle faced by these organizations
remains the difficulty to obtain and update their
information on persons in custody for several reasons:
- The first reason is linked to the fact that in most
detention places falling under the ISF control, the
detainees have no means to contact Human Rights
organizations.
shedding light on the problems facing asylum
seekers/refuges and the lack of a proper policy
framework.
Civil society should continue its advocacy
and awareness raising and increase pressure
to ensure the adoption of a new legislative
framework and follow up so that it is properly
implemented. Civil society should also
participate in a broader societal debate about
Lebanon’s responsibility towards refugees.
So many Lebanese were themselves refugees
in the recent past, and Lebanon should show
solidarity with refugees, even if the country has
a lot of its own problems. After all, Lebanon
has historically been a land of refuge providing
protection to persecuted minorities in the
region.”
Nadim Houry, Director of Human Rights
Watch in Lebanon.

- The second reason is that asylum seekers and refugees, as all foreigners in detention, are regularly
subjected to transfers to prisons which are extremely difficult to access, for organizations as well as
relatives of the detainees.

- The third reason, and most important one, is the fact that Human Rights organizations access on
a regular basis to the General Security detention center is prohibited. This makes the information
sharing on the situation of the person, deportation attempts they could be subjected to, extremely
difficult. Moreover this prevents the organizations from providing these persons with legal
counseling.

Caritas-Migrants: the support to the General Security.

It has emerged during this research that the office of Caritas-Migrant Center served as a pretext for
the Ministry of Interior to claim that the rights of asylum seekers and refugees were protected by an
independent organization. For example, in a letter dated September 4, 2010, the Minister of Interior
pointed out that: “The General Director of the General Security assured that there is no violation of the rights of
the persons in the department of investigation and no procedural violations within the General Security (...) There
is in the department of investigation and procedures a permanent office of Caritas”.

Moreover, the website of the organization67 describes the following objective:

“A lobbying effort will be made for asylum seekers, focusing first on the recognition of the refugee status
within the General Security detention center, and the acceleration of the release of the detainees under
the protection of the UNHCR office in Beirut.”

In fact, during the interviews conducted with refugees it was discovered what had really transited
through the General Security detention center. The refugees have not only been victims of violations by
the General Security in presence of Caritas employees who did not, try to help them, but in some cases
Caritas collaboration allegedly allowed the General Security to facilitate the deportation of refugees
to their country of origin, as well as different violations. It was not possible to verify those allegations
that Caritas would not denounce abuses committed by the General Security (slaps, insults, solitary
confinement of detainees...), nor the statements of some refugees according to which “representatives
of Caritas lie to refugees making them believe that they are about to be taken to an interview for resettlement as
they are about to be deported.”

32
However, there are still numerous overlapping testimonies and several serious elements incriminating
the attitude of Caritas-Migrant Center team vis-à-vis asylum seekers and refugees detained at the
detention center. Here are some examples:

- A reliable source confirmed that Caritas employees have repeatedly helped the General Security to
prevent refugees from making phone calls from the detention center to Human Rights organizations.

- When the persons detained at the General Security detention center began a hunger strike in March
to protest against the conditions of their detention and demand their release, officials from Caritas
denied to journalists the existence of a hunger strike that has yet been confirmed subsequently by
several testimonies and by the health conditions of the detainees.

- Caritas-Migrant Center has consistently protested against any criticism from civil society regarding
the atrocious prison conditions suffered by the detainees at the General Security detention center.

Another problem arose between Caritas and a group of civil society organizations in January 2010 when
a female inmate of the detention center, Yousra al-Amiri, Iraqi refugee, had been transferred to “Caritas
refuge” instead of being simply released by virtue of a court order. The detainee lawyer had then named
Caritas refuge as an “alternative detention center for the General Security.” 68

“It seems that when the detention of foreigners is in violation of the law, as in the case of Yousra al-Amiri in
January 2010, Caritas staff is restricting itself to its humanitarian role, thereby acting in contradiction with
the stated mission of the organization, which claims to play a legal counseling role vis-a-vis the refugees.
Caritas has a humanitarian role; the organization should not claim to be able to have a protective role in
case of Human Rights violation “said Wissam Saliby, Lawyer specialized in migrants and refugees’ rights.

Although the relevance of the utility and appropriateness of Caritas’ humanitarian work at the General
Security detention center is self-evident, it was our duty to report this situation, relatively taboo, and
try to understand the reasons.

The explanation that came out regarding this situation is related to the work of Caritas which is so
subordinated to the permission and goodwill of General Security officers that the organization, in order
to pursue its humanitarian activities, has to comply with the requirements and practices of the General
Security to the detriment of the rights of asylum seekers and refugees detained.

33
 Recommendations

To the Civil Society:

- Launch a social debate on the rights of asylum seekers and refugees.

To the Ministry of Interior:

- Close down the General Security detention center.

- Negotiate a new memorandum of understanding with the UNHCR.

- Exercise effective control over security institutions.

- Strictly implement the judicial decisions and put an end to arbitrary administrative detention.

- Give instructions to all services under the Ministry of Interior which are habilitated to proceed to
arrests in order to prohibit the arrest of asylum seekers and refugees recognized by the UNHCR on
the sole basis of illegal entry/stay.

- Share information to the Internal Security Forces on the status of asylum seekers and refugees as
well as all necessary information to ensure that their rights are respected in case of detention.

- Immediately release all persons who have served their prison sentences.

- Revoke the existing agreement between the General Security and the Internal Security Forces
which imposes the transfer of foreigners to the General Security Detention Center after they have
completed their sentence.

- Provide for asylum seekers and refugees rights equal to those of other migrants.

- Put an immediate end to all deportation of asylum seekers and refugees.

- Grant UNHCR unlimited and unconditional access to any persons within its mandate at the General
Security detention center, as well as lawyers and human rights organizations.

To the UNHCR :

- Negotiate a new memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Interior.

- Provide sufficient means to the question for persons of concern to UNHCR, notably those detained
in Lebanon.

- Publicly denounce the violations of the rights of asylum seekers and refugees.

34
To the Ministry of Justice:

- Implement appropriate measures to ensure respect for the rights of foreigners in general, and for the
rights of asylum seekers and refugees notably in terms of access to Justice and rights of the defense.

- Request from the judges no to take any deportation decision against any person, registered or no
with UNHCR and raising fears if returned to his/her country of origin.

To the Parliament :

- Amend the 1962 Law Regulating the Entry and Stay of Foreigners in Lebanon and their Exit from the
Country in order to guarantee the rights of asylum seekers and refugees.

- Consider alternative non-custodial measures, such as regular reporting to the authorities.

35
 Endnotes
1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14-1 - Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other
countries asylum from persecution.

2 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Adopted on 28 July 1951 by the United Nations Conference of
Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons convened under General Assembly resolution
429 (V) of 14 December 1950. Available at the following address : http://www2.ohchr.org/french/law/refugies.
htm

3 Law Regulating the Entry and Stay of Foreigners in Lebanon and their Exit from the Country,No. 28-1962, 10 July
1962, Available at the following address : http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4c3c630f2.pdf

4 Ibid :

Article 26 – Any foreign national who is the subject of a prosecution or a conviction by an authority that is not
Lebanese for a political crime or whose life or freedom is threatened, also for political reasons, may request
political asylum in Lebanon. The definition of political crime contained in articles 196 and 197 of the Penal Code
shall be taken into consideration. The provisions of articles 30 to 36 of the Penal Code respecting extradition
shall remain applicable.

Article 27 - Asylum shall be granted pursuant to an order made by a committee the membership of which is as
follows: Ministry of Interior, chair; the Directors of Justice, Foreign Affairs and General Security, members. In
the event that the number of votes cast for and against is equal, the chair shall have a casting vote. An order
made by this committee is not admissible in law and may not be subject to any claim, even that of abuse of
power.

Article 28 - A special card shall be issued by the Direction of the General Security to a political refugee. This card
shall contain all the information concerning the identity of the refugee and the conditions to which the refugee
shall be subject.

Article 29 - The committee may refuse to grant asylum or may cancel it at any time or limit it by requiring the
person, for example, to remain in a specific place.

Article 30 - A person who has obtained asylum in Lebanon may not engage in any political activity.

Article 31 - In the event that a former political refugee is deported, he or she may not be removed to the territory
of a country where his or her life or freedom is threatened.

5 V. Robert Schuman Centre for advanced studies, Iraqi refugees in Lebanon, 2009. Available at the following
address: http://cadmus.eui.eu/dspace/bitstream/1814/11299/1/RSCAS_CARIM_ASN_2009_21.pdf

6 Picture http://www.ccrweb.ca/trafficking/accueil.htm

7 Convention relating to the status of refugees, Article 1. - Definition of the term « refugee », As a result of events
occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality
and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,not
having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events,
is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. In the case of a person who has more than one
nationality, the term “the country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national,
and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any
valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of
which he is a national.

8 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, entry into force 4 October 1967, in accordance with article VIII
Available at the following address : http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/protocolrefugees.htm

9 Ibid

10 Picture http://mplbelgique.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/conseil-des-ministres-liban.jpg

11 The preamble of the Lebanese Constitution was added by constitutional law on 9/21/1991. Available at the
following address : http://www.ministryinfo.gov.lb/en/Sub/Lebanon/LebaneseConstitution.aspx

12 FIDH, Report - Lebanon, Palestinian refugees - systematic discrimination and complete lack of interest on the
part of the international community, March 2003, N°356, 20 pages, p.12. Available at the following address:
http://www.fidh.org/Palestinian-refugees-systematic-discrimination
36
13 Picture http://biblio.alloprof.qc.ca/PagesAnonymes/DisplayFiches.aspx?ID=7064

14 UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable criteria and standards relating to the detention of asylum seekers,
1999, Guideline 2. Available at the following link: http://www.unhcr.org.au/pdfs/detentionguidelines.pdf

15 Picture http://www.interet-general.info/article.php3?id_article=11644

16 Picture http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=20794&Cr=torture&Cr1

17 Article 3 Convention against and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial
grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into
account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

18 Report of the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro, submitted pursuant to Commission on
Human Rights resolution 2002/62, E/CN.4/2003/85, Paragraph 15.

19 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Deliberation no 5, E/CN.4/200/4, annex II, 2000.

20 Convention against torture and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

21 Advice to refugees are given by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the form of
guidelines or through decisions of its Executive Committee, which meets once a year to give particular advice
on international protection).

22 UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable criteria and standards relating to the detention of asylum seekers,
[February 1999] Guideline 3: Exceptional reasons for detention.

23 Report of the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro, submitted pursuant to Commission on
Human Rights resolution 2002/62, E/CN.4/2003/85, Paragraph 43

24 Final Report of David Weissbrodt, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of non-citizens, E/CN.4/
Sub.2/2003/23, Paragraph 27.

25 CLDH, Prisons in Lebanon: humanitarian and legal concerns, February 2010, pp.110. Available at the following
address : http://www.solida.org/English%20version/rapports/rapports.html

26 Statistics based on 15 refugees in detention randomly interviewed during March and April 2010.

27 Report of the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro, submitted pursuant to Commission on
Human Rights resolution 2002/62, E/CN.4/2003/85, Paragraph 35.

28 CLDH, Prisons in Lebanon: humanitarian and legal concerns, February 2010, pp.110. Available at the following
address : http://www.solida.org/English%20version/rapports/rapports.html

29 Article 9.1 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Everyone has the right to liberty and security of
person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except
on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

30 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 8, Article 9 (Sixteenth session, 1982), Compilation of General
Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/
Rev.1 at 8 (1994). Available at the following address : http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/hrcom8.
htm

31 Criminal Procedure Code, Article 406 al 1 - (…) the convicted is released on the last day of his sentence.

32 Penal Code, Article 368 – The directors and the guards of the prison, or the disciplinary or correctional
institutions, and all of the staff carried out exercising their powers who have accepted a person without a
warrant or judicial decision or they arrest him beyond the deadline, shall be punished by imprisonment from
one year to three years.

33 Article 58 Internal Rules of prisons, Decree n°1430, February, 11, 1949 and amendments.

34 Ibid

35 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Adopted and
opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984,
entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1).

37
 Available at the following address: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm. The Convention was ratified
by Lebanon on November 4, 2000.

36 CLDH, Prisons in Lebanon, Humanitarian and Legal concerns, February 2000, pp.110

37 Working Group on Arbitrary Détention, Report, Deliberation no 5 (Situation des immigrants et demandeurs
d’asile), E/CN.4/2000/4, annexe II [2000], Principe 9.

38 Picture: http://prison2france.skyrock.com

39 Conclusions adopted by the Executive Committee on International Protection of Refugees No. 85 (XLIX)
– Conclusion on International Protection, 1998. Available at the following address: http://www.unhcr.
org/41b041534.html

40 CLDH, Prisons in Lebanon, Humanitarian and Legal concerns, February 2000, pp.110

41 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Deliberation no 5, E/CN.4/2000/4, annex II [2000], Principle 10. http://
daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G99/165/70/PDF/G9916570.pdf?OpenElement

42 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No.30: Discrimination

Against Non Citizens, 2004, Paragraph 19. Available at the following address : http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.
nsf/0/e3980a673769e229c1256f8d0057cd3d?Opendocument

43 CLDH, Prisons in Lebanon, Humanitarian and Legal concerns, February 2010, pp. 110.

44 Press Release, CLDH, Acts of desperation and pleas for help: Arbitrarily detained refugees cannot bear it
any longer!, March 22, 2010. Available at the following address: http://www.solida.org/Rapports%20et%20
communiques/Communiques%20de%20presse/2010/22%20mars%202010%20Actes%20de%20desespoir%20
et%20appels%20alaide.pdf

45 Human Rights Committee, General Comment no 15, Situation of foreigners in regards to the ICCPR [1986]
Paragraph 7.

46 UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Non-refoulement, October 12, 1977, No. 6 (XXVIII) - 1977, Available at the
following address: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae68c5a30.html

47 Amnesty International, Urgent Action, Sudanese refugee Muhammad Babikir ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Muhammad Adam
faces forcible return, September 24, 2010, Available at the following link : http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/
info/MDE18/006/2010/en

48 UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable criteria and standards relating to the detention of asylum seekers
(revised text) [February 1999], Guideline 3: Exceptional Grounds for Detention.

49 Lebanon: Arbitrary Detention and Torture, by Marie Daunay, Lebanese Center for Human Rights, December
2010.

50 V. Statut du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés,A.G. res. 428 (V), annex, 5 U.N. GAOR
Supp. (No. 20) à 46, U.N.Doc. A/1775 (1950)

51 UNHCR Mission, Our core values and goals.

Available at the following address : http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49ed83046.html

52 UNHCR – Lebanon, Operational Environment,

Available at the following address : http://www.unhcr.fr/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=4aae621d5d1

53 HCR Executive Committee, Conclusion no 50 (XXXIX) on international protection, 1998.

54 UN News, Lebanon: UN official supports improved conditions for refugees, June 24, 2010,

Available at the following address : http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=22264&Cr=Liban&Cr1

55 Iloubnan, Le CLDH appelle les autorités libanaises et le UNHCR à prendre des mesures immédiates pour
protéger les réfugiés, Octobre 1, 2010.

56 CLDH, Prisons in Lebanon – Humanitarian and Legal concerns, February 2010, pp. 110.

57 According to circular Nº 139, of June 12, 1959, enforceable to date, the General Security is a directorate general
under the authority of the Ministry of Interior, headed by a General Director, as President.

58 http://www.unhcr.fr/pages/4aae621d5d1.html

38
59 See Press Release, CLDH, Allegations of torture of a refugee at the airport, The Ministry of Interior and the
UNHCR unable to protect refugees against the scandalous practices of the General Security , November 11, 2010,
available on the following link : http://www.solida.org/Rapports%20et%20communiques/Communiques%20
de%20presse/2010/111110-CLDH_Allegations%20of%20torture%20of%20a%20refugee%20at%20the%20
airport%20EN.pdf

60 http://www.moim.gov.lb

61 Report of the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro, submitted pursuant to Commission on
Human Rights resolution 2002/62, E/CN.4/2003/85, Recommendations, Paragraph 75.

62 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20 [1992]: Replaces general comment 7 concerning
prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment (Art. 7 of the ICCPR), Paragraph 11 “The protection of
the detainee also requires that prompt and regular access be given to […] lawyers” / See also “Body of principles
for the Protection of all persons under any form of detention or Imprisonment”, 1988, Principles 11, 14, 17, 18.

63 Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Report, E/CN.4/1998/44 Paragraphe 33.

64 Letter to Lebanese government voicing concern over migrant and refugee arbitrary detentions, February 24th,
2010, Available in English and Arabic only at the following address: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/24/
letter-lebanese-government-voicing-concern-over-migrant-migrant-and-refugee-arbitrar#_ftnref2

65 Article 8 of the Lebanese Constitution - La liberté individuelle est garantie et protégée. Nul ne peut être arrêté
ou détenu que suivant les dispositions de la loi. Aucune infraction et aucune peine ne peuvent être établies que
par la loi.

66 In this research, focused essentially on the violations committed against asylum seekers and refugees in
detention, we will not address the role of several civil society organizations which help these persons while
they are not in detention.

67 http://caritasmigrant.org.lb/files/ec.htm

68 Now Lebanon, Who is helping Yousra el Amiri, January 27, 2010. Available at the following address: http://
www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArchiveDetails.aspx?ID=141586

39
Notes

40