have a list of drug use related experts, one judge claimed that these experts were not under oath while the two others did not respond, and the judge having a list of 10 experts claimed that they were under oath. The fee, which might be demanded by the expert to confirm drug users’ commitment to treatment and eventual recovery, was on average 278 USD ranging from 30 to 667 USD per case. However, only 44 % of judges have responded to this question. Judges stated that they would recruit experts who were assigned by external parties (e.g., Ministry or Office for Juvenile Protection). If not, they would recruit based on the experts’ qualifications (including having a medical degree and expertise), dependability, and ethical considerations. Others also specified professional consideration, dedication, and their ability to communicate with patients. About two thirds of the judges interviewed believed they would not be able to assign an expert on the expense of public treasury (65%), of which most came from Beirut and Mount Lebanon (35% of the respondents for both). The remaining judges believing they could generally were from Beirut, Mount Lebanon and North Lebanon (33%, 22%, and 22%, respectively).
9.4 Lawyers and rights of the defense Approximately half of the judges stated occasional representation of the defendants by a lawyer in drug-related issues, as well as commitment to treatment by the defendants. Few were the judges who believed that defendants were represented by lawyers most of or all the time, and an even fewer number reckoned that defendants regularly or always committed to treatment. Also, about a third of judges believed that lawyers hardly ever or at times plead the defendants’ innocence on the basis of them having committed to treatment (Table 9.4.1). 57% of the interviewed judges did not recall cases where the defendants presented a certificate of completed recovery for addiction, whereas a quarter felt they did in many cases, with the rest supposing this rarely happening.
191