Criminalizing slander that harms the reputation of individuals
Article 385- Any imputation, even in the form of doubt or questioning of a fact which attacks the honor or the consideration of the person to whom it is imputed, is a defamation. Any term of contempt, invective, outrageous expression or design which does not contain the imputation of any fact are insults. The whole except the provisions of article 383 containing definition of the contempt.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
Paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Covenant allows for certain restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, but only if they are specified by law and are necessary to respect the rights or reputations of others. The text of Article 385 of the Penal Code, which defines the offense of defamation (defamation) in the first paragraph, includes elastic and unclear phrases and an absolute ban on all forms of expression that include direct or indirect harm to the reputation of public individuals, even if it comes within the framework of asking any questions regarding an issue of public interest. Any restriction on freedom of expression must be carefully crafted, and as so the text of Article 385 of the Penal Code jeopardizes the right to freedom of expression itself, limits the ability of citizens and the media to comment on public issues, and impedes political discussion (Commentary No. 34 on Article 19, Human Rights Committee).
Recommendations
Defamation should be decriminalized, and decriminalization does not mean that the right to protect the reputation of any person will not be preserved, but instead of criminalization and imprisonment, the victim has the right to resort to the civil judiciary and claim civil indemnities.
Related Themes
Defamation
Criminalizing defamation affecting international relations
Article 292- The same penalties shall be imposed upon the complaint of the injured party for the following crimes: - Publicly insulting a foreign country, its army, flag or national emblem. -Insulting the president of a foreign country, its ministers, or its political representative in Lebanon. -Public defamation or slander against the president of a foreign country, its ministers, or its political representative in Lebanon. -It is not permissible to prove the act that was the subject of the slander.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
When a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights imposes certain restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression, those restrictions may not jeopardize the right itself. The restrictions stipulated in Article 292 of the Penal Code absolutely prohibit the right to criticize heads of states and their political representatives, and the principle of acquittal is not applied in the event that an act of defamation is proven against them, without any legitimate legal justification or necessity. Also, the imprisonment penalty prescribed for demeaning these personalities is considered disproportionate to the act prescribed in a democratic society and in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant (Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, Article 19 of 2011).
Related Themes
Defamation
Criminalizing defamation of the nation and the president
Article 384 - Whoever insults the head of state shall be punished with imprisonment from six months to two years, and the same penalty shall be imposed on whoever publicly insults the flag or the national emblem by one of the means mentioned in Article 196.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
Most state laws contain provisions that criminalize insulting the head of state and include emprisonement sanctions. Germany has decriminalized insulting foreign presidents, representatives of foreign countries and their ministers only, but insulting the German president is still a crime. “Insult” is not defined in the Criminal Code, but the courts have interpreted it as “a manifestation of knowingly and willing disregard or contempt for another person. France has abolished the prison sentence for insulting the head of state in 2001 and since 2013 has decriminalized the act of insulting a chief Country.
Recommendations
Firstly, making defamation directed at the President and the army not result in imprisonment. Secondly , prohibit Public figures to be granted special protection from defamation. Thirdly, The law should explicitly recognize the public interest in criticism of public figures and public authorities. Fourthly, Amending Article 317 of the Penal Code so that only statements that contain hate speech are criminalized.
Related Themes
Defamation
Criminalizing demonstrations that harm public security
Article 346- Every crowd or procession on public roads or in a place open to the public is considered a rioting gathering and is punishable by imprisonment from one month to one year: If it consists of three or more people with the intent of committing a felony or misdemeanor and at least one of them is armed. If it consists of at least seven persons with the intention of protesting against a decision or measure taken by the public authorities with the intention of putting pressure on them. If the number of people exceeds twenty and they appear in an appearance that would disturb the general tranquility.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
According to the second paragraph of Article 346 of the Penal Code, every gathering in a public place consisting of 7 people or more with the intention of protesting against a decision or measure taken by the public authorities with the intention of putting pressure on them is considered a riot and its members are punished by imprisonment.This restriction violates several basic rights at the same time: the right to express opinion, criticize and object to the decisions of public authorities, the right to assemble and demonstrate peacefully against the decisions of the authority. This restriction, even if it is linked to the possibility of a special intent, which is to put pressure on the public authorities, hence, this particular intent is legally available in all kinds of protest movements that aim to influence the behavior and decisions of the government, which are legitimate in any democratic society. This restriction on freedom of expression and the right to assemble and to object to the decisions of the authority is unnecessary, constitutes a flagrant violation of the freedoms mentioned and puts the very essence of those rights at risk.
Recommendations
Cancel the article, especially the third paragraph, which considers that any crowd of more than seven people with the intention of protesting against a decision or measure taken by the public authorities to put pressure on them, is considered a threat to public peace and this is contrary to the right to peacefully protest and object to the decisions of the authority.
Related Themes
Freedom of Assembly
Criminalizing fake news that might harm state security
Article 297 - Amended according to Law 239 on 27/5/1993 Every Lebanese who broadcasts abroad while he is aware of the matter is false or exaggerated news that undermines the prestige of the state or its financial position, shall be punished by imprisonment for at least six months and a fine of between one hundred thousand and one million Lebanese pounds, and the court can decide to publish the verdict.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
The legal rules that limit the exercise of freedom of expression and other human rights must be clear, when it comes to the the flexible phrases used (the legitimacy of the state and its financial position) in the text of the article to restrict freedom of expression, although it aims to protect the alleged legitimate interest of the state related to public order, it lacks of limited and clear standards that determine the nature of harming the prestige and scope of the state or harming its financial position. This would create a wide discretion for the authorities to use these flexible terms to restrict freedom of expression and circulation of information in a way that affects the essence of these two freedoms, making these restrictions do not truly meet the objectives of achieving the intended public interest. The Human Rights Committee, in Comment No. 34 on Article 19, held that “For the purposes of paragraph 3, the rule to be regarded as a 'law' must be formulated with sufficient precision in order for an individual to control his or her conduct in accordance with it, and must be made available to the general public. The persons responsible for its implementation have absolute discretion to restrict freedom of expression.” Nor shall these restrictions jeopardize the right itself. The restrictions stipulated in Article 292 of the Penal Code absolutely prohibit the right to criticize heads of state and their political representatives, and the principle of acquittal is not applied if an act of defamation is proven against them, without any legitimate legal justification or necessity. In addition, the penalty of imprisonment prescribed for demeaning these personalities is considered disproportionate to the act prescribed in a democratic society and in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant. (Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, Article 19 of 2011). Also, the penalty is imprisonment of up to six months, which is prescribed for the acts. Those that fall within the broad criminalization circle of this article are disproportionate to the actions that this article may affect.
Recommendations
Abolishing the loose and elastic phrases such as “exaggerated” and “state prestige” and defining the actions that are considered to be the dissemination of false news with the intention of clearly harming public peace and security, provided that all texts related to the subject and also stipulated in the Publications Law are unified and the unjustified imprisonment penalty is abolished.
Related Themes
Fake news
Criminalizing fake news that might harm state security
Article 319 (amended by Law 239 on 27/5/1993 ) - Whoever discloses by one of the means mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of Article 209 fabricated facts or false allegations to cause a decline in national banknotes or to shake confidence in the strength of the state’s cash and bonds and all documents related to public financial confidence shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to three years and a fine of five hundred A thousand pounds to two million pounds. In addition, it may be decided to publish the judgment.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
The legal rules that limit the exercise of freedom of expression and other human rights must be clear, when it comes to the flexible phrases used (the legitimacy of the state and its financial position) in the text of the article to restrict freedom of expression, although it aims to protect the alleged legitimate interest of the state related to public order, it lacks of limited and clear standards that determine the nature of harming the prestige and scope of the state or harming its financial position. This would create a wide discretion for the authorities to use these flexible terms to restrict freedom of expression and circulation of information in a way that affects the essence of these two freedoms, making these restrictions do not truly meet the objectives of achieving the intended public interest. The Human Rights Committee, in Comment No. 34 on Article 19, held that “For the purposes of paragraph 3, the rule to be regarded as a 'law' must be formulated with sufficient precision in order for an individual to control his or her conduct in accordance with it, and must be made available to the general public. The persons responsible for its implementation have absolute discretion to restrict freedom of expression.” Nor shall these restrictions jeopardize the right itself. The restrictions stipulated in Article 292 of the Penal Code absolutely prohibit the right to criticize heads of state and their political representatives, and the principle of acquittal is not applied if an act of defamation is proven against them, without any legitimate legal justification or necessity. In addition, the penalty of imprisonment prescribed for demeaning these personalities is considered disproportionate to the act prescribed in a democratic society and in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant. (Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, Article 19 of 2011). Also, the penalty is imprisonment of up to six months, which is prescribed for the acts. Those that fall within the broad criminalization circle of this article are disproportionate to the actions that this article may affect.
Related Themes
Fake news
Criminalizing fake news that might harm state security
Article 320- Every person who invokes the same means to incite the public is entitled to the same penalties: either to withdraw money deposited in public expenditures and funds. Or to sell state bonds and other public bonds, or to refrain from buying them.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
The legal rules that limit the exercise of freedom of expression and other human rights must be clear, for the flexible phrases used (the legitimacy of the state and its financial position) in the text of the article to restrict freedom of expression, although it aims to protect the alleged legitimate interest of the state related to public order, it lacks of limited and clear standards that determine the nature of harming the prestige and scope of the state or harming its financial position. This would create a wide discretion for the authorities to use these flexible terms to restrict freedom of expression and circulation of information in a way that affects the essence of these two freedoms, making these restrictions do not truly meet the objectives of achieving the intended public interest. The Human Rights Committee, in Comment No. 34 on Article 19, held that “For the purposes of paragraph 3, the rule to be regarded as a 'law' must be formulated with sufficient precision in order for an individual to control his or her conduct in accordance with it, and must be made available to the general public. The persons responsible for its implementation have absolute discretion to restrict freedom of expression.” Nor shall these restrictions jeopardize the right itself. The restrictions stipulated in Article 292 of the Penal Code absolutely prohibit the right to criticize heads of state and their political representatives, and the principle of acquittal is not applied if an act of defamation is proven against them, without any legitimate legal justification or necessity. In addition, the penalty of imprisonment prescribed for demeaning these personalities is considered disproportionate to the act prescribed in a democratic society and in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant. (Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, Article 19 of 2011). Also, the penalty is imprisonment of up to six months, which is prescribed for the acts. Those that fall within the broad criminalization circle of this article are disproportionate to the actions that this article may affect.
Related Themes
Fake news
Criminalizing slander that harms the reputation of the state, its institutions and employees
Article 386 (amended by Law 239 on 27/5/1993 ) Defamation by one of the means specified in Article 209 is punishable by: Imprisonment from two months to two years if it is directed against the head of state. Imprisonment for one year at most if it is directed to the courts, organized bodies, the army, or public administrations, or if it is directed against an employee who exercises public authority for the sake of his position or capacity. Imprisonment for a maximum of three months or a fine of twenty thousand to two hundred thousand pounds if it falls on any other employee because of his position or capacity.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
Article 386 permits the imposition of a prison sentence of up to two years against anyone who commits an act of defamation against any of the public officials who exercise public authority or against public bodies such as the judiciary and the army, while exercising the right to freedom of opinion and expression. These harsh penalties to protect the reputation and dignity of political officials who are in charge of public affairs and stipulated in Article 386 are incompatible with freedom of opinion and expression in a democratic society, and are unnecessary and disproportionate to the authority that it claims to protect.
Recommendations
Firstly, making defamation directed at the President and the army not result in imprisonment. Secondly , prohibit Public figures to be granted special protection from defamation. Thirdly, The law should explicitly recognize the public interest in criticism of public figures and public authorities. Fourthly, Amending Article 317 of the Penal Code so that only statements that contain hate speech are criminalized. Fifthly, abolishing the prison sentence for not being proportional with the act.
Related Themes
Defamation
Criminalizing the slander that harms religion
Article 473- Whoever blasphemes the name of God in public shall be punished with imprisonment from one month to one year.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
Under the title of “harming religious feeling,” the Lebanese Penal Code prohibits freedom of criticism and expression in religious matters and it criminalizes in Articles 473 and 474 anyone who blasphemes the name of God or degrades or contempt religious rites, and the penalty is up to three years in prison. The blasphemy provisions of the Lebanese Penal Code are used to limit freedom of artistic expression and the freedom to hold and express opinions. These texts are subject to comments related to elastic phrases, lack of clarity in the legal text and endangering the basis of the right to freedom of expression, in addition to the conflict of the stipulated restrictions with the principles of necessity and proportionality.
Recommendations
It is necessary to repeal texts related to defamation of religions that include elastic phrases that may be misused to restrict freedom of expression, and combine them with articles that prohibit or punish hate speech, provided that the penalties are proportional to the act and necessary in a pluralistic democratic society.
Related Themes
Blasphemy
Criminalizing the slander that harms religion
Article 474 (Amended By Law on 1/12/1954 ) - Whoever, by any of the methods stipulated in Article 209, degrades the religious rites that are practiced in public, or incites contempt for one of those rites, shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to three years.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
Under the title of “harming religious feeling,” the Lebanese Penal Code prohibits freedom of criticism and expression in religious matters and it criminalizes in Articles 473 and 474 anyone who blasphemes the name of God or degrades or contempt religious rites, and the penalty is up to three years in prison. The blasphemy provisions of the Lebanese Penal Code are used to limit freedom of artistic expression and the freedom to hold and express opinions. These texts are subject to comments related to elastic phrases, lack of clarity in the legal text and endangering the basis of the right to freedom of expression, in addition to the conflict of the stipulated restrictions with the principles of necessity and proportionality.
Related Themes
Blasphemy
Criminalizing the slander that harms the course of justice
Article 408- Whoever testifies before a judicial authority or a military or administrative judiciary and asserts falsehood, denies the truth, or conceals some or all of what he knows of the facts of the case about which he is being questioned, shall be punished by imprisonment from three months to three years.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
Law for journalists did not guarantee their right to protect the information they have access to and the sources of their information. The article of the Penal Code jeopardizes the freedom and essence of journalistic work through the possibility of prosecuting every journalist who does not disclose the sources of their information that they may have procured regarding a particular case, and that is in the event being summoned to testify in that case in front of the specialized courts.
Related Themes
Protection of journalism profession
Criminalizing the slander that harms the reputation of the head of state
Article 387- With the exception of the slander inflicted on the head of the state, the suspect is acquitted if the subject of the slander is an act related to the job and is proven correct.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
Article 387 of the Penal Code permits acquittal from the offense of defamation if the facts presented to public officials are proven, but this article excludes the President of the Republic from the possibility of proving the actions attributed to him in his face and benefiting from not imposing the punishment stipulated in Article 386 of the Penal Code. This article contradicts the text of Article 7 of the Constitution, which guarantees the equality of all Lebanese before the law and the principle that all Lebanese must bear public duties without any difference between them. This restriction would also impede the right to freedom of expression itself and limit public debate (refer to the commentary on Article 386 of the Penal Code).
Related Themes
Defamation
Criminilizing speech that might harm public order
Article 317- (Amended By Law 1954 and then Law 239 on 27/5/1993 ) Every act, writing, and speech intended or resulting in inciting sectarian or racial strife or inciting conflict between sects and the various elements of the nation shall be punished by imprisonment from one to three years and a fine of one hundred thousand to eight hundred thousand Lebanese pounds, as well as prevention from exercising the rights mentioned in the second paragraphs. And the fourth of Article 65, and the court can decide to publish the judgment.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
The legal rules that limit the exercise of freedom of expression and other human rights must be clear, for the flexible phrases used in the text of the article to restrict freedom of expression, although it aims to protect the alleged legitimate interest of the state related to public order, it lacks of limited and clear standards that determine the nature of harming the prestige and scope of the state or harming its religious elements. This would create a wide discretion for the authorities to use these flexible terms to restrict freedom of expression and circulation of information in a way that affects the essence of these two freedoms, making these restrictions do not truly meet the objectives of achieving the intended public interest. The Human Rights Committee, in Comment No. 34 on Article 19, held that “For the purposes of paragraph 3, the rule to be regarded as a 'law' must be formulated with sufficient precision in order for an individual to control his or her conduct in accordance with it, and must be made available to the general public. The persons responsible for its implementation have absolute discretion to restrict freedom of expression.” Nor shall these restrictions jeopardize the right itself. The restrictions stipulated in Article 292 of the Penal Code absolutely prohibit the right to criticize heads of state and their political representatives, and the principle of acquittal is not applied if an act of defamation is proven against them, without any legitimate legal justification or necessity. In addition, the penalty of imprisonment prescribed for demeaning these personalities is considered disproportionate to the act prescribed in a democratic society and in violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant. (Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, Article 19 of 2011). Also, the penalty is imprisonment of up to six months, which is prescribed for the acts. Those that fall within the broad criminalization circle of this article are disproportionate to the actions that this article may affect.
Recommendations
Abolishing loose and elastic phrases such as “stirring up strife” and defining the actions that are clearly prohibited or punished, provided that all texts related to hate speech and also stipulated in the Publications Law to be unified and the penalty of unjustified imprisonment to be abolished.
Related Themes
Freedom to Publish
Prohibit assemblies that would compromise national security
Article 345- (ammended by Law 239 0n 27/5/1993) Whoever is in a meeting that does not have the character of a private meeting, whether by its purpose or purpose, or the number of invitees to it, or those who are composed of them, or from the place of its meeting, or if it is in a public place, or in a place open to the public, or exposed to its eyes, then shouts out a shout, or riots, or the most prominent sign in the In cases where public security is disturbed, or he commits any other rioting demonstration, he shall be punished by imprisonment from one month to one year and a fine from twenty thousand to two hundred thousand pounds.
Not Compliant with Standards
Analysis
The legal rules that limit the exercise of freedom of assembly and demonstration must be clear. The elastic phrases used in the text of Article 345 of the Penal Code to restrict freedom of assembly and demonstration, (such as to shout slogans, riot songs, or the most prominent sign in situations where public security is disturbed) constitute an unjust restriction, that is unclear and vague and leads to abuse of the lack of clarity of the text, and to the violation of the rights of individuals and groups in assembly and demonstration. (Human Rights Committee in Comment No. 34 regarding Article 19)
Recommendations
Repealing this article because it contradicts the right of demonstration and expression, and includes elastic and unclear phrases that cause criminalization and leave a wide scope for discretion, such as: "to shout slogans, riot songs, or the most prominent sign in situations where public security is disturbed."
Related Themes
Freedom of Assembly
Restriction of information
Article 420 (amended according to Law 239 dated May 27, 1993)- Will be punished with a fine of twenty-five to one hundred pounds whoever publishes: 1- An act of investigation or criminal or correctional procedure before it has been read in public hearing; 2- The internal deliberations of the Courts and Tribunals; 3- The debates that took place behind closed doors; 4- The debates of the lawsuits in declaration of paternity; 5- The debates on the instances in divorce or in separations of bodies; 6- all debates of which the Courts or Tribunals have prohibited the publication. The preceding provisions do not apply to judgments published in good faith other than by posters or placards.
Partially Compliant with Standards
Analysis
Parts of Article 420 aims to protect privacy in some types of lawsuits brought to the courts. It also considered that publishing the final judgment in such cases in good faith is not a punishable offense under the law. However, the absolute prohibition of publishing investigation documents is unjustified and unnecessary in a democratic society, as everyone has the right to see the investigation procedures or one of its documents if it is related to public interest.
