Libya Resumes Executions After 16 Years: What Changed Under Haftar’s LAAF?

Libya has resumed executions for the first time since 2010, with at least 30 people put to death in eastern Libya since August 23, according to Amnesty International. At least 50 other men under death sentences remain at imminent risk of execution, the organisation said. The UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) has also confirmed that more than 30 people have been executed in the east in recent weeks.

The executions were carried out by the Libyan Arab Armed Forces (LAAF), the de facto military authority in eastern Libya commanded by Khalifa Haftar. Libya's civilian and military courts had continued to issue death sentences during the years without executions. Human Rights Watch recorded 105 confirmed death sentences as of December 2024, including 19 people who were detained.

The return of capital punishment therefore raises a question larger than the death penalty itself: what has changed in eastern Libya's security and judicial system that has allowed old death sentences to start being enforced?

Why Has Libya Resumed Executions After 16 Years?

The immediate change is not the creation of a new death-penalty regime. Libya has retained capital punishment under its criminal law, and courts continued handing down death sentences during the years when no executions were carried out.

On August 23, the LAAF's military prosecutor announced that 10 people had been executed by firing squad after being convicted of joining what authorities described as terrorist groups and of murder. Amnesty said another 20 people were executed between then and September 9.

UNSMIL described the development as the end of a de facto moratorium that had lasted about 15 years and called for an immediate suspension of further executions. It said the cases should be reviewed to ensure compliance with fair-trial and due-process standards.

The restart came in the aftermath of years of conflict in eastern Libya. Amnesty said most of those executed or still facing execution had been sentenced in connection with the armed conflict between the LAAF and opposing armed groups between 2014 and 2018.

Who Were The Prisoners?

The full identities and circumstances of all those executed have not been publicly documented.

AP reported that the first 10 men were convicted by military courts and that the eastern military prosecutor's office described their offences as involving terrorism-related charges and the killing of military personnel and civilians. The prosecutor said the required legal procedures had been completed.

Rights groups have provided a different picture of the defendants. Lawyers for Justice in Libya said local rights organisations had identified nine of the first 10 as civilians. Amnesty said those executed and those still facing execution included both fighters and people suspected of opposing the LAAF or being associated with its opponents.

Amnesty also said at least five of those executed had been arrested between 2015 and 2018 and subjected to enforced disappearance or incommunicado detention, in some cases for as long as two years.

The available evidence therefore gives a clearer picture of the scale of the executions than of every prisoner's individual case.

What Charges Led To The Death Sentences?

The cases largely stem from Libya's years of armed conflict and the eastern authorities' counter-insurgency campaigns.

The military prosecutor said the first 10 men had been convicted of joining terrorist organisations and committing murders. Amnesty said some of those executed or still facing execution had been convicted of murder and terrorism-related offences linked to fighting between the LAAF and rival armed groups from 2014 to 2018.

The charges therefore go beyond ordinary criminal cases. Many are tied to a period when eastern Libya was divided between rival armed formations and the LAAF was fighting to consolidate control over Benghazi and other areas.

That context matters because many of the convictions were handed down through military courts, creating a separate legal question over how civilians were tried.

How Were The Military Trials Conducted?

This is the central legal controversy.

Amnesty said the defendants were tried before military courts in proceedings that were secretive and manifestly unfair. It reported that dozens of people, including those executed and those still at risk, had been held for years before being referred to military courts.

The organisation said some defendants were denied the ability to choose their own lawyers and were instead assigned state-appointed counsel. It also said lawyers were unable to communicate privately with defendants before or during proceedings.

AP reported that Libya's National Institution for Human Rights questioned the use of military courts to try civilians, pointing to concerns over jurisdiction, judicial independence and fair-trial guarantees. It also reported that a Constitutional Court ruling had found the trial of civilians by military courts for certain terrorism-related and state-security offences unconstitutional.

Human Rights Watch has previously documented broader problems in Libya's justice system, including military courts continuing to try civilians, restricted access to lawyers and serious due-process violations.

The eastern authorities, however, have presented the executions as the implementation of valid sentences following completed judicial procedures. The dispute is therefore not simply over whether the death penalty exists in Libyan law, but over which courts had jurisdiction and whether the proceedings met the standards required for a lawful conviction.

Were Confessions Obtained Through Torture?

Torture allegations are another major issue surrounding the cases.

Amnesty said several prisoners reported being tortured after their arrest by armed groups affiliated with the LAAF. The allegations include electric shocks, burns, beatings with plastic pipes and suspension in painful stress positions. The organisation said the alleged abuse was used to obtain confessions that were later presented as evidence.

Amnesty said at least four of those executed had allegedly been subjected to such treatment while in the custody of the Internal Security Agency, an armed group allied with the LAAF. It also said some prisoners had been held incommunicado for prolonged periods before their cases reached military courts.

These allegations have not been independently established in every individual case. But they raise a fundamental legal issue: if convictions relied on evidence obtained through torture or prolonged incommunicado detention, the reliability and fairness of the proceedings become central to the legality of the resulting sentences.

UNSMIL has called for the cases to undergo careful, credible review consistent with Libya's national and international human-rights obligations.

Who Actually Controls Eastern Libya?

The executions cannot be separated from the political structure in which they occurred.

The LAAF is the dominant military force across much of eastern and southern Libya and is commanded by Khalifa Haftar. It operates alongside political institutions linked to the eastern-based House of Representatives, while the UN-backed Government of National Unity remains based in Tripoli. Libya therefore continues to function through competing political and security institutions rather than a single unified national authority.

The UN Panel of Experts has described armed groups as major actors shaping governance outcomes in Libya and said the LAAF had consolidated control over strategic territory and routes in the south. It also documented the wider role of armed groups in detention, coercion and interference with state institutions.

That makes the description of the LAAF as a de facto authority important. It exercises substantial control over territory and coercive institutions, but that does not make eastern Libya a separately recognised state.

What Is The Legal Status Of Haftar's Eastern Authorities?

Libya's institutional division complicates the question of who can lawfully enforce a death sentence.

The death penalty remains part of Libyan law, including provisions in the country's penal and military codes. But the existence of that legislation does not settle the jurisdictional dispute surrounding civilians tried by eastern military courts.

Human Rights Watch has documented that Libya's justice system remains fragmented and that military courts continue to try civilians. It has also noted that lawyers face serious obstacles in accessing detainees and case files.

The UN's recent reporting similarly describes a Libyan state in which armed groups exercise significant influence over institutions and where accountability mechanisms remain weak. The eastern authorities therefore exercise de facto control, but their institutions operate within a country whose political and judicial structures remain divided.

That distinction is central to the current executions. The question is not simply whether a Libyan law permits capital punishment, but whether the institutions carrying out the sentences have acted within a lawful and nationally recognised judicial framework.

How Do The Executions Fit Into Haftar's Security System?

The executions also reveal the overlap between military, security and judicial power in eastern Libya.

The UN Panel of Experts has described a system in which armed groups exert influence over governance, security and economic structures, including through coercion, political interference and control of strategic territory. It also documented arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearance and denial of fair-trial rights involving armed actors in both eastern and western Libya.

Amnesty's account places the current executions within that same security structure, alleging that LAAF-affiliated forces participated in arrests, incommunicado detention and torture before prisoners were transferred to military courts.

This does not establish that every individual conviction was politically motivated. It does show why the role of the LAAF and its affiliated security institutions is central to assessing the credibility and legality of the executions.

What Has Libya And The UN Said?

The Tripoli-based Government of National Unity has opposed the executions in the east, reflecting the country's broader institutional divide. Eastern authorities, meanwhile, have presented the executions as the lawful enforcement of judicial sentences against people convicted of serious crimes.

The strongest international response has come from UNSMIL. On September 16, it called for an immediate suspension of further executions and urged the eastern authorities to review the cases with its human-rights team. It said the executions had ended the de facto moratorium and raised serious concerns over fair-trial guarantees, while also recognising the right of victims' families to accountability.

The UN mission's position is therefore more specific than simply opposing the death penalty. It is calling for a review of the procedures and cases themselves, particularly whether they complied with Libya's human-rights obligations.

What Has Changed Under Haftar's LAAF?

The most significant change is not that Libya has suddenly created a new legal basis for capital punishment. That framework already existed.

What changed in 2026 is that the LAAF-controlled eastern authorities began implementing old death sentences at scale after a de facto halt lasting since 2010. At least 30 people have been executed since August 23, according to Amnesty, while at least 50 others remain at imminent risk.

That has brought several unresolved issues into the open at once: the use of military courts against civilians, allegations that torture-tainted confessions were used as evidence, the role of LAAF-linked security agencies, and the uncertain relationship between eastern de facto institutions and Libya's divided national legal system.

UNSMIL's call for a suspension and review shows that the dispute is now as much about the legitimacy of the process as the punishment itself.

For Libya, the executions have therefore revived a question that had been dormant for 16 years: not simply whether the death penalty remains legal, but whether a divided state with rival institutions can guarantee that the irreversible punishment is imposed only after a lawful, independent and fair judicial process.