Death Penalty in Algeria: UN Experts Raise Serious Concerns over Law No. 26-13 as COSYFOP Renews Its Call to Maintain the Moratorium

Death Penalty in Algeria | Trade Union Confederation of Productive Forces (COSYFOP) · Documentary Analysis · 23 October 2026

COSYFOP Raised Its Concerns 24 Days Before the UN Experts

Before the UN experts issued their communication, COSYFOP had already identified several risks in a statement released by its Confederal Bureau on 6 September 2026, entitled “Algeria's Wildfires: Truth, Transparency and Accountability Before Any Resumption of Executions.”The Confederation expressed solidarity with the victims and their families and acknowledged the efforts of its National Committee for the Protection of the Environment and Forests. Committee teams had worked on the ground to combat the fires and support affected communities, particularly in Jijel Province, alongside civil protection personnel, workers and citizen volunteers.

The statement went beyond an expression of solidarity. It linked the protection of the right to life to responsibilities incumbent on the State, extending well beyond the criminal justice system. COSYFOP argued that responding to wildfires could not be reduced to carrying out executions, since such fires may result from criminal acts, negligence, accidents or extreme weather conditions. It called for a comprehensive official assessment of casualties and losses, clarification of the measures taken following previous years' fires, and disclosure of the resources actually deployed on the ground. The Confederation also warned that the death penalty remained available for other offences, including prosecutions brought under Article 87 bis of the Criminal Code, a provision used in politically sensitive cases against peaceful activists. The statement concluded that wildfires must be addressed through prevention and accountability, not executions.

Two UN Special Rapporteurs Write to Algeria on 30 September

Twenty-four days after COSYFOP's statement,Morris Tidball-Binz, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, andPau Pérez-Sales, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, sent a joint nine-page communication to the Algerian Government. It concerned the draft law amending and supplementing Ordinance No. 66-156 establishing the Criminal Code, which was then before the People's National Assembly, as well as official instructions and public statements announcing the intended resumption of executions. The two mandate holders distinguished between two separate issues: ending the de facto moratorium observed since 1993, and expanding the scope of capital punishment or changing the conditions under which it may be imposed. They sought clarification from the Government on six matters: the progress of the draft legislation; the nature of the instructions concerning the resumption of executions; safeguards relating to offences committed before the amendments and persons previously sentenced to death; individualised sentencing, judicial independence and the exclusion of evidence obtained through torture; investigations into the August 2026 wildfires; and available information on death sentences and appeals.

Thirty-Three Years Without Executions, Including During Algeria's Black Decade

The communication confirms that the death penalty remains part of Algerian law and continues to be imposed by courts, although no executions have been carried out since 1993. This distinction is essential. Algeria has not legally abolished capital punishment; instead, it has maintained a de facto moratorium that has never been formally entrenched in binding legislation. As a result, the suspension of executions remains a matter of penal policy that could be reversed without a constitutional amendment. The communication refers to paragraph 50 of the Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 36, which considers measures that increase actual resort to the death penalty to be contrary to the object and purpose of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Any reform intended to resume executions after more than three decades must therefore be assessed against that standard, even if it does not create any new capital offences.

The historical context gives this longstanding practice particular significance. Executions did not cease during a period of stability. The moratorium was maintained throughout much of the armed violence of the 1990s, known in Algeria as the Black Decade, when the country experienced exceptionally serious acts of violence and numerous death sentences were handed down without being carried out. It would be inaccurate to attribute a particular motive to the authorities of that period: what can be established is the outcome, not the reasons behind it. Resuming executions after 33 years would therefore represent a break with a longstanding institutional practice. It would also raise questions about older death sentences, some delivered in absentia, and prisoners who have spent many years awaiting execution. In paragraph 40 of General Comment No. 36, the Human Rights Committee links such prolonged situations, depending on the circumstances and conditions of detention, to possible violations of Article 7 of the Covenant.

From Draft Legislation to Enacted Law: What Actually Changed?

Only twelve days elapsed between the UN communication and the final enactment of the law. The People's National Assembly adopted the bill on 1 October 2026, the day after the communication was dated. The Council of the Nation approved it on 7 October, before Law No. 26-13 was enacted on 12 October and published in Official Gazette No. 72 on 13 October.

• 30 August 2026 The President instructs the Minister of Justice to prepare amendments to the Criminal Code by 15 September.
• 2 September 2026 The High Security Council calls for the death penalty to be enforced for this category of offences.
• 6 September 2026 A Council of Ministers statement reiterates the instructions. COSYFOP issues its own statement the same day.
• 9 September 2026 The Prime Minister's Office announces consideration of a preliminary draft law implementing these instructions.
• 21 September 2026 The bill is presented to the Committee on Legal and Administrative Affairs, Liberties and Human Rights of the People's National Assembly.
• 22 September 2026 According to the UN communication, the Minister of Justice reportedly tells the press that the death penalty will be implemented.
• 30 September 2026 The two UN Special Rapporteurs send communication OL DZA 5/2026.
• 1 October 2026 The People's National Assembly adopts the bill.
• 7 October 2026 The Council of the Nation approves the bill.
• 12–13 October 2026 Law No. 26-13 is enacted and subsequently published in Official Gazette No. 72.

A comparison between the provisions examined in the UN communication and those published in the Official Gazette shows that the core amendments were adopted substantially unchanged.

• Article 291: provides for the death penalty in cases involving the abduction of a child by any means, torture and/or sexual assault and/or mutilation, while excluding mitigating circumstances. The Special Rapporteurs asked the Government to clarify whether each of these acts could independently constitute grounds for imposing the death penalty.
• Article 395 bis: provides for the death penalty for intentionally setting fire to forests, woodland, cultivated or uncultivated fields, trees or timber stacked within forests.
• Article 396: increases the prison sentence to between ten and twenty years.
• Article 396 bis 1: provides for the death penalty for intentionally setting fire to public or private property in circumstances involving incitement by, or actions on behalf of, a foreign State or foreign entity; treason or intelligence activities involving a foreign State; organised criminal groups; threats to public security and order, national unity, the stability of State institutions or the national economy; or damage to the environment and forest, plant, animal or agricultural resources.
• Article 396 bis 2: provides for the death penalty for inciting, encouraging, financing or organising the commission of these acts, or participating in their commission, preparation or facilitation by any means, including information and communication technologies and social media platforms.
• Article 396 bis 3: excludes mitigating circumstances for persons convicted under Articles 395 bis, 396 bis 1 and 396 bis 2.
• Article 399: provides for the death penalty where intentional arson results in the death of one or more persons in the circumstances covered by Articles 395, 396, 396 bis, 397 and 398.

This comparison is significant for two reasons. First, it establishes that the provisions examined by the Special Rapporteurs corresponded to those ultimately adopted. This was not certain when they prepared their communication: on page seven, they acknowledged that the information available to them did not allow them to confirm whether the text under review was the latest version of the draft law. Second, it shows that the concerns raised before adoption remain relevant after enactment. The Special Rapporteurs expressly requested that their observations be brought to the attention of both chambers of Parliament before the legislation was adopted. The communication also indicated that it would be made public within 48 hours, one day after the vote in the People's National Assembly.

The Government, for its part, made its position clear. Addressing the Council of the Nation on 6 October, the Minister of Justice responded to critics of the amendments by affirming that Algeria remained committed to its human rights obligations and describing the President's decision as constitutional. He explained that a death sentence could be carried out only after the judgment had become final and an application for pardon had been rejected, as required under Article 155 of the law governing prisons and the social reintegration of prisoners. As of the publication of this article, no public government response to the UN communication had been identified, nor had any execution been recorded in Algeria. The de facto moratorium therefore remained intact in practice, although the legal and political framework surrounding it had changed.

The Fundamental Legal Concerns That Remain

The Right to Life and the Limits of the “Most Serious Crimes”

Algeria has been a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since 12 September 1989. Article 6 protects the right to life, while paragraph 2 imposes strict conditions on the use of capital punishment in States that have not abolished it. In paragraph 35 of General Comment No. 36, the Human Rights Committee explains that the term “most serious crimes” is limited to crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing. The gravity of an offence, its classification under domestic law or even the fact that a death has occurred does not, in itself, meet this threshold. In paragraph 52, the Committee further explains that imposing the death penalty for offences falling outside this category violates Articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. This is the central legal concern: Articles 395 bis and 396 bis 1 allow the death penalty to be imposed without any loss of life, while Article 396 bis 2 extends capital punishment to forms of participation without requiring intentional killing. Articles 399 and 291 do not expressly require an intention to cause death either. However grave these offences may be, they fall outside the Covenant's definition of the “most serious crimes” where they do not involve intentional killing.

Broadly Worded Provisions and Risks to Legitimate Expression

The communication warns that terms such as encouragement, participation, preparation and facilitation, particularly when linked to social media, could encompass statements and online content that are otherwise lawful. Deliberate and direct incitement to commit a criminal offence must be distinguished from expressing an opinion, sharing information or commenting on an incident. The Special Rapporteurs also emphasise that the different forms of participation covered by the legislation are not equivalent in seriousness. Direct involvement in starting a fire cannot be treated in the same way as preparatory conduct or more remote forms of assistance involving neither violence nor intent to kill. Each form of participation, together with the required element of intent, must therefore be precisely defined. Otherwise, the broad wording of these provisions risks giving rise to restrictions incompatible with freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Covenant.

Legality, Non-Retroactivity and Individualised Sentencing

Article 15(1) of the Covenant prohibits the imposition of a heavier penalty than the one applicable when an offence was committed and guarantees the benefit of any lighter penalty subsequently introduced by law. The Special Rapporteurs recalled that, in paragraphs 34 and 38 of General Comment No. 36, the Human Rights Committee makes clear that States may not extend the death penalty to new offences or base its application on vague or unforeseeable legal provisions. They therefore recommended clear transitional safeguards, particularly given the very short interval between the August wildfires and the announced timetable for the legislative amendments. Because the enacted law contains no such provisions, compliance with the principle of non-retroactivity is left to the general rules of criminal law and judicial interpretation. It is important to distinguish the existence of a legal risk from an actual instance of retroactive application, for which no finding is made here. A related concern arises under Article 396 bis 3, which excludes mitigating circumstances. In paragraph 37 of General Comment No. 36, the Committee considers a mandatory death sentence that leaves judges no opportunity to take account of the circumstances of the offence or the offender's personal situation to constitute an arbitrary deprivation of life. The possibility of a pardon cannot replace individualised judicial sentencing. An important distinction must be maintained: excluding mitigating circumstances does not necessarily make the death penalty mandatory, but it significantly restricts judicial discretion. The communication accordingly recommended removing automatic sentencing mechanisms based on the legal classification of an offence, its harmful consequences or the category of person involved.

Judicial Independence, the Presumption of Innocence and the Prohibition of Torture

The communication stresses that executive instructions on criminal justice policy cannot determine guilt or sentencing in individual cases. Public announcements calling for executions to resume while investigations were still under way make it all the more important to preserve a clear separation between executive policy and judicial decisions. This requirement is grounded in Article 14 of the Covenant, Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, paragraphs 19 and 30 of General Comment No. 32 , and Principles 1, 2 and 4 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. Article 14(2) further requires respect for the presumption of innocence. The communication also recalls that the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute and admits no exceptions, pursuant to Articles 4(2) and 7 of the Covenant and Articles 2 and 16 of the Convention against Torture. Article 15 of that Convention requires the exclusion of statements obtained through torture, while Articles 12 and 13 require prompt and impartial investigations and protection for complainants and witnesses. Article 14(3) and (5) of the Covenant guarantees effective legal assistance and the right to have a conviction reviewed by a higher tribunal. Article 6(4) guarantees the right to seek pardon, alongside the safeguards against execution while appeals remain under consideration. In paragraph 41 of General Comment No. 36, the Human Rights Committee explains that a death sentence imposed following proceedings that violate Article 14 also violates Article 6. Article 6(5) further prohibits imposing the death penalty for offences committed by persons under the age of 18 and carrying out executions on pregnant women.

Protecting the Right to Life Begins with Prevention and Investigation

One of the most important points made in the communication is that protecting the right to life involves much more than criminal punishment. Article 6 of the Covenant, read together with Article 2(1) and (3), requires reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable threats to life, effective investigations, the identification of responsibility and access to effective remedies in cases of potentially unlawful death. These obligations are elaborated in paragraphs 7 and 26–28 of General Comment No. 36 and paragraphs 15–37 of the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016). The Special Rapporteurs recommended that the debate on criminal law reform also address the measures needed to establish the causes of deaths and determine responsibility, including any failures in prevention, early warning, evacuation or rescue operations. A response consistent with the State's obligations concerning the right to life cannot be confined to harsher penalties. This is precisely the approach COSYFOP had articulated from a trade union perspective 24 days earlier. That convergence does not mean, however, that the UN communication referred to or endorsed the Confederation's statement.

Algeria's International Obligations and the Question of Consistency

This issue should not be framed as a dispute between Algeria and an external body. It concerns the consistency between obligations the State freely undertook and its current criminal justice policies. In its 2018 concluding observations on Algeria , the Human Rights Committee recommended, in paragraphs 27 and 28, that the State refrain from introducing new capital offences, commute the sentences of prisoners on death row, review the rules governing death sentences imposed in absentia, and take the necessary steps to accede to the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The Committee also urged Algeria to consider a political and legislative process towards abolition. In paragraph 27, it expressed concern that the death penalty continued to apply to offences falling outside the category of the “most serious crimes”. The Special Rapporteurs' communication also refers to General Assembly resolution 79/179 , adopted on 17 December 2024 and entitled “Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty”, which Algeria supported. Operative paragraph 10 encourages States with a moratorium to maintain it, while the resolution's preamble notes the absence of conclusive evidence concerning the deterrent effect of the death penalty. The legal status of these instruments must be distinguished. A General Assembly resolution does not itself create treaty obligations or replace the provisions of the Covenant. The issue is therefore not a violation of a non-binding resolution, but the consistency of a State's position after supporting a text encouraging the maintenance of moratoria, only to move towards expanding capital punishment and announcing plans to enforce it less than two years later.

Why the Government Should Heed the Call for Reconsideration

The two Special Rapporteurs explicitly called on the Algerian Government to reconsider plans to resume executions and to ensure that the Criminal Code reform preserves and consolidates the moratorium with a view to the complete abolition of the death penalty. Five considerations make this appeal particularly important. First, Algeria voluntarily assumed the obligations at issue by becoming a party to the Covenant and the Convention against Torture; they were not imposed from outside. Second, resuming executions would end a practice maintained for 33 years, including during the most violent years of the Black Decade. Third, extending capital punishment to offences that do not involve intentional killing raises serious questions about compliance with Article 6 of the Covenant. Fourth, retaining the contested provisions after explicit concerns were raised by UN Special Rapporteurs may affect confidence in the State's commitment to honouring its international obligations. Fifth, an effective response to the tragedy of the wildfires must also be measured by the quality of prevention, the independence of investigations, the protection of victims and the accountability of public institutions.

The possible impact of this policy choice on Algeria's international standing deserves careful consideration, without exaggeration. No UN document has established that Algeria has lost its credibility, and it would be inaccurate to suggest otherwise. International credibility is built through respect for commitments, consistency in public decision-making and a demonstrated willingness to examine international recommendations seriously. This communication will be included in the report submitted by the mandate holders to the Human Rights Council, becoming part of the record of Algeria's engagement with these mechanisms. In that sense, the issue is not one of passing judgment on Algeria, but of an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that its dialogue with UN human rights mechanisms is substantive and productive, as it has previously done by responding to communications DZA 12/2021 andDZA 7/2025.

COSYFOP Remains Committed to Its Advocacy

The Trade Union Confederation of Productive Forces notes that its position, publicly expressed on 6 September 2026, preceded the intervention of the UN experts. The concerns it raised at the time, drawing on practical experience and trade union advocacy, now converge with those expressed by the two Special Rapporteurs through the framework of international law, particularly regarding the right to life, disaster prevention, transparency, accountability and judicial safeguards.

On this basis, COSYFOP renews its call on the Algerian Government to reconsider its current approach, give the UN experts' observations the serious consideration they deserve, and preserve the de facto moratorium on executions maintained for 33 years. It also urges the authorities to direct public resources towards measures that genuinely save lives: preventing wildfires, strengthening emergency response capabilities, conducting independent and transparent investigations, establishing accountability, and supporting victims and their families. Respect for human dignity and Algeria's international obligations is not a surrender of national sovereignty. It is an expression of sovereignty exercised responsibly.

The Story in Video