:
In the midst of a very delicate political and legal phase, amid the complexities of the Syrian displacement file and its security and judicial repercussions, the Lebanese government’s approval of a judicial agreement with Syria regarding the transfer of convicts sparked widespread debate about the extent of judicial sovereignty, the concept of justice, and the rights of victims. In this regard, the sharp stance of the General Coordinator of the National Campaign to Repatriate Displaced Syrians, Captain Maroun Al-Khouli, was noteworthy, who warned of the seriousness of this agreement in its current form, considering that it affects the essence of the Lebanese national interest and raises fundamental questions about the balance of rights and duties between countries.
In the context of his talk to, Al-Khouli believed that the judicial agreement concluded between Lebanon and Syria to address the situation of Syrian detainees in Lebanese prisons, in the form that was adopted, reflects a clear imbalance in the principle of balance and puts the interest of the other party ahead of the Lebanese national interest, instead of providing real protection for the judicial and security sovereignty of the Lebanese state.
He pointed out that the transfer of convicts, especially those convicted of serious crimes such as the killing of Lebanese civilians and military personnel, cannot be viewed as an administrative or humanitarian measure in isolation from the broader sovereign framework. The rulings issued by the Lebanese judiciary were issued in the name of the Lebanese people, and any measure that empties these rulings of their content through a collective extradition of the convicts, even under the name of “completion of the sentence,” would harm the prestige of the state, detract from the concept of justice, and harm the rights of the victims and their families.
Al-Khouli stopped at what he described as the basic and dangerous gaps in the content of the agreement, pointing out that expanding the scope of transfer to include those who have spent ten years in prison, even in murder cases, constitutes an extremely dangerous precedent, and opens the door to indirect impunity, especially in light of the absence of any actual legal or oversight guarantees that guarantee how punishments are implemented within Syrian territory.
With regard to personal rights, Al-Khouli considered that maintaining financial rights as a formal condition, in a country that already suffers from the weak ability of those affected to fulfill their rights, is nothing more than a cover-up political acquittal that does not provide real protection for the rights of victims and does not guarantee them any real justice.
He also pointed out that approving the application retroactively and within a short implementation period not exceeding three months clearly reflects a trend towards quickly closing the file in the interest of one party, instead of taking a path of balanced judicial cooperation based on the principle of mutual interests and respect for mutual sovereignty.
Al-Khouli stressed that the most dangerous thing about the agreement is that it imposes on Lebanon a major judicial and security concession without any clear sovereign or national compensation, considering that Lebanon has, before proceeding with any similar agreement, a legitimate and non-negotiable right to link it to three basic headings:
First: A clear and final demarcation of the land and sea borders between Lebanon and Syria, in a way that preserves national sovereignty and puts an end to chronic border chaos.
Second: Closing illegal crossings and stopping the smuggling of people and goods, which drains the Lebanese economy and poses a daily threat to national security.
Third: Develop an official, timely and binding plan to return displaced Syrians to Syria, given that the continued displacement has become an existential, economic, social and security threat to Lebanon, especially since the essence of the agreement is linked to those accused of crimes committed within Lebanese territory.
Al-Khouli concluded his statement by stressing that implementing the agreement in its current form, without achieving any of the Lebanese sovereign demands, practically means transforming it from a judicial agreement into a net national loss for Lebanon, and a political and security gain for the Syrian side. He added: “We are not against judicial cooperation between countries, but we reject Lebanon being the weakest link, or being asked to pay the prices alone while its crucial cases are neglected,” calling on the Lebanese government to radically reconsider the agreement and explicitly link its implementation to the highest Lebanese interests, because any facilitation of an agreement formulated for the benefit of one party, as he put it, is considered a neglect of sovereignty and the rights of the Lebanese, and cannot be accepted under any heading.
