Background:

This case, identified by the code (MI-TDH-056) to preserve the confidentiality of the individual’s identity, concerns a 55-year-old Syrian detainee who faced the risk of extradition to Greece on charges linked to a case dating back to 2014, amid allegations of threats to his fundamental rights and defenses asserting his innocence of the charges brought against him. 

He was arrested in Lebanon based on an extradition request issued by the Greek authorities pursuant to a warrant on charges of human trafficking, and a decree was issued ordering his extradition to Greece. The detainee stated that he had no connection to the alleged crime, explaining that he had previously sold his car to another person who was later found to be involved in smuggling operations. According to his testimony, this led to his name being implicated in the case without any direct involvement in the acts attributed to him. He also expressed serious concerns about being subjected to torture or ill-treatment if the extradition decision were carried out. 

The detainee remained in custody in Lebanon for ten months despite his innocence, whereas in Greece his detention did not exceed one and a half months. During this short period, the court was able to hear witnesses, verify his innocence, and issue a swift acquittal. Moreover, the Greek authorities offered him an official apology after his innocence was established, reflecting their respect for human rights and commitment to correcting judicial errors. This contrast highlights profound gaps in the Lebanese judicial system, where pretrial detention effectively becomes a punishment due to procedural delays, while other judicial systems demonstrate greater efficiency in expediting trials and safeguarding the rights of detainees. 

Legal Actions Taken by the Cedar Centre for Legal Studies

• 4 February 2026: A notarized power of attorney was executed authorizing Cedar Centre for Legal Studies to represent the detainee and follow up on his case.
• 25 February 2026: The Centre reviewed the case file and confirmed that the detainee was wanted by Greek authorities under a 2014 warrant for human trafficking, and that a decree ordering his extradition had been issued, despite concerns of possible torture or ill‑treatment.
• 25 February 2026: The Centre verified that the extradition order was scheduled for execution.
• 25 February 2026: The Centre filed an appeal before the State Council, including an urgent request to suspend the extradition decree.
• 11 March 2026: The Centre submitted an urgent petition before the State Council under case number 267/2026 challenging the extradition order.
• 12 March 2026: The Centre requested authorization from the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Beirut to conduct a video call with the detainee via WhatsApp to continue legal follow‑up.
• 27 March 2026: The State Council rejected the request to suspend the extradition order, citing lack of urgency.
• 18 May 2026: The Centre’s team visited the detainee in detention, obtained his signature on necessary travel documents, and secured his personal phone number to ensure ongoing communication after extradition.
• 9 June 2026: The Centre completed administrative procedures for the extradition, including travel arrangements and ticket booking, in preparation for his transfer to Greece on June 10, 2026.
• 22 June 2026, after the detainee was handed over to Greece, the lawyer from Cedar Centre for Legal Studies continued to follow up on the case and communicate with the detainee before the Greek judicial authorities until the issuance of the final verdict, which concluded with the declaration of his innocence from the charge attributed to him.”
• Following the acquittal verdict: the detainee left Greece heading to Jordan, then proceeded to Syria, while the lawyer from Cedar Centre for Legal Studies continued monitoring his legal situation and maintaining communication with him.

Key Human Rights Issues Highlighted

1. Execution of the extradition order despite credible fears of torture or ill‑treatment, raising questions about Lebanon’s compliance with the principle of non‑refoulement under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture.
2. Limited effectiveness of judicial remedies, as the request to suspend extradition was rejected before assessing the risks raised by the detainee, potentially undermining his right to an effective remedy and fair trial guarantees under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3. Extradition carried out despite claims of innocence, which were later validated by the Greek court’s acquittal, underscoring the importance of thorough fact‑checking before executing extradition decisions.

Recommendations

1. Uphold the principle of non‑refoulement by conducting individualized and effective risk assessments of torture or ill‑treatment prior to any extradition, in line with Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture.
2. Ensure the effectiveness of judicial remedies, allowing individuals facing extradition to challenge such decisions and obtain a final judicial ruling before enforcement.
3. Strengthen procedural safeguards in extradition cases to guarantee the right to defense and fair trial in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
4. Conduct rigorous verification of evidence and allegations underlying extradition requests, particularly in cases where individuals claim mistaken attribution of criminal responsibility, before executing any extradition order.