The Syrian authorities’ request to the Lebanese security services to hand over more than 200 senior officers from the former Syrian regime, who sought refuge in Lebanon after the fall of the “Bashar al-Assad” regime, puts the Lebanese state before a highly sensitive issue, in which legal considerations intertwine with political calculations, and the concepts of asylum and judicial prosecution conflict with national sovereignty.
This issue is not just a security or administrative procedure, but raises a broader discussion about how the Lebanese state deals with an external request related to officers from a former regime, in the absence of a clear legal framework, and the overlap of political and judicial standards related to determining the legal status of these refugees.
In this context, lawyer Nematallah Salameh explains in an interview with that the Syrian officers present in Lebanon are wanted in security cases and crimes, and are not political refugees.
Salameh points out a fundamental point, which is that Lebanon has not granted any of these officers the status of political asylum officially. Political asylum, according to international laws, is not assumed or inferred, but is granted by an explicit and clear decision from the host country.
In this regard, he cites international experiences, such as France, which had previously granted political asylum to Lebanese figures, while the situation in Lebanon is completely different, as these people are considered to be present on Lebanese territory without any official asylum status.
Salameh explains the fundamental difference between the judicial extradition and security deportation tracks, which are two completely different procedures in terms of nature and mechanisms. Security deportation is an administrative procedure that is taken, while judicial extradition requires the existence of arrest warrants issued by a competent judicial authority, and that the person be subject to formal judicial procedures, whether he is detained or on trial, before a decision to extradite him is taken.
He confirms that the officers whom the Syrian authorities are demanding today are not subject to any trial inside Lebanon, and there is no opposition from the authority to extraditing them to their country.
Salameh adds that the matter is currently limited to negotiations taking place between the Lebanese state, represented by a ministerial delegation that includes the Lebanese Minister of Justice, and a Syrian ministerial delegation, and the aim of this coordination is to establish legal foundations for extradition operations, in a manner that does not violate national sovereignty.
In the broader legal framework, the prisoner transfer agreement is one of the tools of judicial cooperation in international law, as it regulates the transfer of convicts between two or more countries to complete the execution of the sentence or follow up on judicial procedures, in accordance with national laws and international conventions. These agreements are based on fundamental principles, most notably the condition of “joint criminalization,” the principle of reciprocity, the prohibition of double punishment, in addition to respect for human rights and adherence to national sovereignty.
As for the agreement in force between Lebanon and Syria, it regulates the process of extraditing criminals according to specific conditions, foremost of which is the exclusion of crimes of a political nature, and the need to follow precise legal procedures that include submitting the necessary requests and evidence. It also emphasizes guaranteeing the rights of prisoners, including humane treatment, a fair trial, health care, the right to communicate with the outside world and obtain legal assistance, in addition to protection from any arbitrary or illegal extradition.
In conclusion, the Syrian request puts the Lebanese state before a delicate equation: extradition cannot be a quick administrative procedure outside legal frameworks, just as ignoring it completely may have political and security repercussions. Between these two options, Beirut seems to be required to formulate a balanced approach that preserves its sovereignty and takes into account its international legal obligations, without sliding into decisions that may open legal and political doors that are difficult to close later.
