Pre-Trial Detention, Bail, and Judicial Supervision
Explanation
This explanation provides simplified illustrative material for the rules governing pre-trial detention, release, and judicial control, and it does not in itself constitute the text of the law enshrined exclusively in the stipulated articles. Pre-trial detention (la détention préventive) is considered a measure restricted by strict controls, as the law requires the immediate interrogation of the defendant if brought in by a summons, or within twenty-four hours if brought in by a warrant of arrest (le mandat d'amener). If this time limit expires without their interrogation, the defendant is inevitably referred by the head of the holding cell to the Public Prosecutor, and if their detention continues without bringing them in, this is considered an arbitrary act for which the person responsible is prosecuted for the crime of deprivation of personal liberty.
The investigating judge may not issue a decision to detain the defendant except after interrogating them and seeking the opinion of the Public Prosecution, and provided that the offense is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, or that the defendant has been previously sentenced to a criminal penalty or to imprisonment for more than three months without a stay of execution. The law also requires that the detention decision be reasoned with factual and material grounds showing that it is the only means to preserve evidence, protect witnesses and victims, prevent collusion, protect the defendant, prevent the recurrence of the offense, or prevent flight and spare public order any disruption.
The law permits the investigating judge, regardless of the type of offense and after seeking the opinion of the Public Prosecution, to replace detention by placing the defendant under judicial control (le contrôle judiciaire) and binding them to one or more exclusively specified obligations, such as depositing a passport, adhering to a specific area of residence, or providing a guaranteeing bail (le cautionnement). The judge has the right to modify these obligations, and they also have the right, after seeking the opinion of the Public Prosecution, to issue an arrest warrant against the defendant and confiscate their bail to the treasury if they breach any of these obligations.
The law sets maximum periods for pre-trial detention that may not be exceeded; they do not exceed two months in a misdemeanor, extendable for a maximum of two additional months in cases of extreme necessity, and do not exceed six months in a felony, renewable once by a reasoned decision, with the exception of certain crimes such as drugs, murder, attacks on state security, terrorism, and those previously sentenced to a criminal penalty. The judge also has the authority to ban the defendant from traveling (l'interdiction de voyager) for a period not exceeding two months in a misdemeanor and one year in a felony from the date of their release or discharge.
The law regulates the issue of release (la mise en liberté) through two paths; release by right, which is mandatorily decided after five days in specific misdemeanors whose penalty does not exceed two years of imprisonment if the defendant is a residing Lebanese national and not previously sentenced to a custodial penalty, and discretionary release by a decision of the judge with or without bail upon a request and an undertaking in all other offenses. The rules also regulate the time limits for appealing release decisions and their rejection before the indictment chamber (la chambre d'accusation) within twenty-four hours, while establishing a decisive principle stipulating that the appeal of a release decision stays its execution by law.
Official legal articles
replace · 2010-07-01: Open the official text
amend · 1993-05-27: Open the official text
Think deeper
How does the law balance the protection of the defendant's liberty through setting time limits for detention and allowing release by right, with ensuring the interest of the investigation through the suspensive effect of appealing a release and the requirement of bail?
Flashcards
What is the legal time limit for interrogating a defendant brought in under a warrant of arrest?
The investigating judge shall interrogate them within twenty-four hours from the time of executing the warrant of arrest against them (Article 107).
When is the continued detention of the defendant considered an arbitrary act in law, and what is its consequence?
If their detention continues for more than twenty-four hours without being brought before the Public Prosecutor. The responsible official is prosecuted for the crime of deprivation of personal liberty (Article 107).
What is the maximum period of pre-trial detention in a misdemeanor and what is the maximum limit for its legal extension?
It may not exceed two months and can be extended for a similar period as a maximum in extreme necessity. A person previously sentenced to at least one year is excepted (Article 108).
What is the maximum period for banning the defendant from traveling and when does this period begin to run?
A period not exceeding two months in a misdemeanor and one year in a felony. This period runs from the date of their release or discharge (Article 108).
What are the conditions that must be met for the release of the defendant by right after the expiration of five days of detention?
The offense must be a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty not exceeding two years of imprisonment. The defendant must be Lebanese residing in Lebanon. They must not be previously sentenced for a dishonorable offense or to at least one year in prison (Article 113).
What is the fundamental difference between appealing a detention decision and appealing a release decision in terms of the execution of the decision?
Appealing a decision ordering detention does not stay its execution (Article 107). Conversely, appealing a release decision stays its execution by law (Article 116).
What is the time limit for the Public Prosecution to appeal a release decision and from what date is it legally calculated?
The time limit for appeal is twenty-four hours. This period runs from the date the decision is issued, not from the date of its notification (Article 116).
Practice questions
If the twenty-four hour time limit expires after bringing in the defendant and it is impossible to interrogate them, what is the procedure imposed by law?
The law imposes that if interrogating the brought-in defendant is impossible, the Public Prosecutor orders their immediate release (Article 107).
What is the financial penalty imposed on the clerk if the legal procedures are not observed in the warrant of arrest or the detention decision?
The clerk is fined a maximum of two million pounds by a court decision if they violate the procedures of the arrest warrant and detention decision (Article 107).
What is the maximum period of pre-trial detention in ordinary felonies that are not excepted by law, and how many times may it be renewed?
The detention period in a felony cannot exceed six months, renewable once, except for specific serious felonies and previously sentenced individuals (Article 108).
What are the legal consequences if the defendant breaches one of the obligations of judicial control imposed on them as an alternative to detention?
Upon the defendant's breach of monitoring obligations, the investigating judge decides to detain them and confiscate the bail after consulting the Public Prosecution (Article 111).
From when does the calculation of the time limit for appealing a release decision begin for the Public Prosecution compared to the personal claimant?
The personal claimant's appeal time limit is twenty-four hours from notification, while the Public Prosecution's time limit runs from the decision's issuance (Article 116).
Which of the following items does not fall within the legal inclusions covered by the release bail?
The bail guarantees a portion of the personal compensations, alongside attending proceedings, executing the judgment, fines, fees, and advanced expenses (Article 114).
Case problems
The investigating judge detained a Lebanese defendant, who has a permanent residence in Beirut, for the misdemeanor offense of simple theft punishable by a maximum of one and a half years of imprisonment. After seven days of his detention had elapsed, his counsel submitted a request for his release, undertaking therein to attend all investigation and trial proceedings and the execution of the judgment, and relying on his judicial record being free of any prior conviction. The investigating judge decided to dismiss the request, reasoning that a guaranteeing financial bail of no less than five million pounds must be provided as a fundamental condition before approving the release. The counsel consulted a colleague regarding the validity of this decision and the possibility of appealing it.
Model answer
The investigating judge's decision to refuse the release and require a financial bail violates the provisions of the law regulating mandatory release by right (Article 113).
The law stipulates mandatory conditions for release by right after the expiration of five days from detention (Article 113). These conditions are that the offense is a misdemeanor whose penalty does not exceed two years of imprisonment.
The defendant must also be Lebanese residing in Lebanon and not previously sentenced for a dishonorable offense or to one year of imprisonment.
All these conditions are met in this case, as the offense is a misdemeanor with a maximum limit of one and a half years, the defendant is Lebanese with a residence in Lebanon, and his record is free of any prior criminal precedent.
He has also spent seven days in detention, which is more than the prescribed time limit of five days.
In the event these conditions are met, the law imposes his release mandatorily by right in exchange for his undertaking to attend the proceedings and execute the judgment without compelling him to provide any financial bail.
The defendant has the right to appeal the decision dismissing his release request before the indictment chamber within twenty-four hours of being notified.
This appeal is submitted through the investigating judge according to the specified legal procedures (Articles 113 and 116).
Self-grading rubric
The investigating judge issued a decision replacing the detention of a defendant in a misdemeanor of battery and harm by placing him under judicial control, and imposed on him the deposit of his passport with the registry, not leaving the perimeter of his village, and providing a guaranteeing bail. A month after the decision took effect, the defendant left his village to reside in another city without permission, and failed to periodically prove his presence at the monitoring center. When the investigating judge learned of the violation, he immediately issued on his own motion, and without consulting the Public Prosecution, an arrest warrant against him and decided to confiscate his bail, and also included in his decision a ban on his travel for a period of four months starting from the date of the issuance of this decision. Clarify the extent to which the investigating judge's decisions comply with the provisions of the law.
Model answer
The investigating judge's decisions were marred by two explicit violations of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure related to the detention period and judicial control (Articles 108 and 111).
First regarding detention and bail confiscation, the law requires seeking the Public Prosecution's opinion in advance upon breaching control obligations (Article 111).
The investigating judge may then issue an arrest warrant and confiscate the bail to the treasury. The judge's action without seeking the Prosecution's opinion constitutes an explicit procedural violation.
Second regarding the travel ban, the law limits the investigating judge's authority to ban travel to a period not exceeding two months in a misdemeanor (Article 108).
The judge's determination of the period at four months exceeds the binding legal ceiling in misdemeanor matters.
The law also stipulates that the travel ban period runs from the date of release or discharge (Article 108).
This period does not run from the date of the issuance of the control or detention decision.
Consequently, it is mandatory to seek the opinion of the Public Prosecution before issuing the arrest warrant and confiscating the bail.
The travel ban period must also be amended to a maximum of two months in accordance with the provisions of the law (Article 108).
Self-grading rubric
In a felony case of forging official documents (which is not among the felonies of murder, drugs, state security, terrorism, or comprehensive danger, and the defendant has not been previously sentenced), the investigating judge decided, after interrogating the defendant and seeking the opinion of the Public Prosecution, to release him in exchange for a cash bail of ten million pounds. The day after the issuance of the decision, the Public Prosecution filed a direct appeal before the indictment chamber by means of a memorandum it deposited directly with the chamber's registry without going through the investigating judge, and requested the revocation of the decision and keeping the defendant detained. In response, the defendant's counsel proceeded to pay the bail amount and requested the immediate release of his client, arguing that the Public Prosecution's appeal does not stay the execution as long as the bail has been fulfilled, and that its appeal is void for not notifying the adversaries first. Analyze these defenses and procedures.
Model answer
The procedures and defenses presented involve precise legal issues subject to the provisions regulating bail and the appeal of the investigating judge's decisions (Articles 114 and 116).
First regarding the appeal time limit, the law grants the Public Prosecution twenty-four hours from the decision's issuance to appeal it (Article 116).
Its appeal on the following day falls within the legal time limit. The counsel's defense of its invalidity for not notifying him is incorrect because the time limit runs from the issuance date, not notification.
Second regarding the decision's execution, the law explicitly stipulates that appealing the release decision stays its execution (Article 116).
Paying the bail does not permit the release of the defendant. The counsel's defense of non-stay of execution is dismissed for its explicit violation of the text of the law.
Third regarding formal procedures, the Public Prosecution erred by submitting its appeal directly to the indictment chamber's registry.
The law requires submitting the appeal exclusively through the investigating judge (Article 116).
Fourth the law obligates the released defendant to elect a domicile in the center of the investigating judge (Article 116).
This applies if he does not have a real domicile there, which is a complementary obligation to the release procedures.