Why are civilians still tried before Lebanon’s military courts?

Lebanon’s military judiciary has long occupied a unique and controversial position within the country’s legal system.

Designed to ensure swift and specialized prosecution of military-related offences, the military judiciary has gradually acquired a much broader jurisdiction extending beyond members of the armed forces to include security personnel, public employees, and civilians accused of crimes affecting national security.

At the center of the debate is a fundamental question: should civilians continue to appear before military courts, or should their cases be transferred entirely to the ordinary judiciary?

An exceptional judiciary with broad powers

The military judiciary derives its legal framework primarily from Law No. 24/68 of 13 April 1968, known as the Military Judiciary Law. Unlike ordinary courts, which have general jurisdiction over criminal offences unless a specific law provides otherwise, military courts represent an exceptional jurisdiction created to handle specific categories of cases.

Lebanon’s judicial system includes several exceptional courts, including juvenile courts, the Press Court, the Judicial Council, and military courts. The latter is responsible for defining military offences, establishing procedures, and determining applicable penalties.

The Military Judiciary Law operates alongside the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a special law, it takes precedence when its provisions explicitly address a case. However, when no specific provision exists, general criminal laws apply, a principle confirmed by Articles 33 and 99 of the Military Judiciary Law.

The military judiciary relies on several legal frameworks, including the Military Judiciary Law, the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the 1958 Terrorism Law, the Narcotics Law, and legislation regulating weapons and ammunition.

Despite being created primarily for military offences, its jurisdiction has expanded considerably. It covers not only members of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) but also personnel from the Internal Security Forces (ISF), General Security, State Security, customs authorities, and civilian employees of the Ministry of Defense.

Moreover, Article 24 of the law grants military courts jurisdiction over certain crimes regardless of the perpetrator’s status, including terrorism-related offences, attempts to provoke civil war or sectarian tensions, weapons violations, espionage, treason, relations with an enemy state, and crimes committed against military personnel.

Why do civilians still face military courts?

The presence of civilians before military courts remains the most contested aspect of Lebanon’s military judiciary.

Former Minister of Justice Ibrahim Najjar explained to The Beiruter that the current system expanded military jurisdiction through both a “personal” and “material” approach. The first relates to who can be prosecuted, extending beyond soldiers to security personnel and civilians involved in cases before military courts. The second relates to the nature of crimes, allowing military courts to hear cases involving civilians when the offence concerns terrorism, weapons, or national security.

This broad interpretation has resulted in civilians appearing before military judges for offences ranging from security-related allegations to cases linked to public demonstrations and freedom of expression.

During the 2015 waste crisis protests, 14 demonstrators were referred to military courts, facing possible prison sentences of up to 3 years. Several activists and lawyers have since argued that military jurisdiction has sometimes been used as a deterrent against political activism and criticism of security institutions.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) documented cases involving civilians who alleged torture during military detention and interrogation. In 10 documented cases, detainees reported being subjected to torture by army personnel, including 8 cases involving individuals prosecuted before military courts on terrorism and security charges. According to the organization, some defendants alleged that forced confessions obtained during interrogation were later used as evidence against them.

Concerns have also extended to minors. According to the Union for the Protection of Juveniles in Lebanon, 355 children were tried before military courts in 2016, raising questions regarding compatibility with international standards protecting children’s rights.

Concerns over independence and fair trial guarantees

The structure of Lebanon’s military judiciary creates challenges regarding judicial independence.

Military judges are appointed by the Minister of Defense and are generally military officers, often holding ranks of lieutenant colonel or higher. Unlike ordinary judges, they do not fall under the authority of the Higher Judicial Council and are not required to have the same legal qualifications and judicial career path as civilian judges. Najjar highlighted that this creates tension with Article 20 of the Lebanese Constitution, which states that judicial power shall be independent.

International standards, including principles developed by United Nations (UN) bodies, stress that civilians should not be tried before military courts except in exceptional circumstances. They also recommend limiting military jurisdiction to strictly military offences committed by military personnel and excluding serious human rights violations from military courts. The UN Human Rights Committee requested Lebanon in 1997 to reconsider the jurisdiction of military courts and transfer cases involving civilians to ordinary courts.

Concerns regarding procedural guarantees have also been raised. These include restrictions on public access to hearings, limited ability to appeal military court decisions, insufficient reasoning behind judgments, restrictions on victims participating in proceedings, and challenges regarding access to lawyers during preliminary investigations.

Calls for reform and international models

Lebanese legal organizations and lawmakers have increasingly called for reforming the military judiciary rather than abolishing it completely.

A 2021 legislative proposal submitted by MPs Georges Adwan and Georges Okais sought to amend Articles 23 and 24 of the Military Judiciary Law by removing civilian cases from military jurisdiction. The proposal suggested transferring crimes committed by civilians, regardless of their nature, to ordinary courts.

Najjar argued that reform should focus on five main areas: limiting military courts to purely military offences committed by armed forces personnel, transferring terrorism and weapons cases involving civilians to specialized civilian criminal chambers, ending the military judiciary’s dependence on the Ministry of Defense, restoring victims’ right to participate in proceedings, and guaranteeing appeals before higher civilian courts.

International examples demonstrate different approaches. France, historically influential on Lebanon’s legal system, abolished military courts during peacetime through reforms adopted between 1982 and 1999, transferring even terrorism cases to ordinary courts with specialized judges. Italy’s Constitution limits military courts during peacetime to crimes committed by members of the armed forces. Turkey also restricted military jurisdiction over civilians following constitutional reforms.

For Najjar, the solution is not eliminating military justice entirely but redefining its role. Lebanon could adopt a model that balances between national security requirements and individual human rights, combining the French and Italian approaches: maintaining a limited military judiciary responsible only for internal military discipline while transferring all cases involving civilians, human rights violations, and security crimes committed by civilians to specialized civilian courts.