Introduction

The workshop was convened to discuss a new draft law concerning “Virtual Crimes and Digital Evidence” in Libya. The session aimed to present a near-finalized version of the law and open the floor for discussion to gather feedback from experts, including representatives from judicial bodies, civil society, and technical and security agencies.

Historical Background

The workshop clarified that efforts regarding this law are not new; initial attempts began in 2008, with subsequent drafts in 2009 and 2015. The current version represents a modern update that accounts for recent technological and legislative shifts.

Research and Global Alignment

• Regional Benchmarking: The IT Crime Combatting Department reviewed laws from 22 Arab countries, noting that the most recent was the Syrian law of 2023.
• International Standards: To ensure a balanced legal framework, the draft was cross-referenced with international agreements such as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and the Arab Convention on Combating Information Technology Offences, alongside human rights treaties.

Statement by the Libyan Association for Members of Judicial Bodies

A representative of the Association emphasized several critical points:

• Urgency: The law comes at a crucial time as digital space crimes have become a genuine threat to national and societal security.
• Targeted Offenses: Examples include system hacking, privacy violations, fraud, extortion, defamation, and the spread of extremist ideology.
• Digital Evidence: Identified as the “cornerstone” of prosecution, requiring precise mechanisms for preservation, analysis, and legal admissibility.
• Support: The Association expressed full readiness to provide legal consultations and expert judges to help draft a modern, balanced law.

Justifications for the New Draft

The Gap Between Law and Practice:

The speaker noted that previous Law No. 5 was insufficient. A significant gap exists between rigid legal texts and the practical realities of modern crimes, many of which lack clear legal characterization.

Keeping Pace with Innovation:

The draft aims to address technologies like Artificial Intelligence and new criminal methods such as Skimming (card cloning).

Alarming Statistics:

Data revealed a sharp rise in cybercrime:

• 2024: 604 cases.
• First Half of 2025: 470 cases (projected to exceed 900 by year-end).

Newly Added Offenses:

The draft criminalizes acts previously not explicitly covered, including:

• Misuse of encryption for criminal purposes.
• Spamming (unsolicited promotional emails).
• Spreading fake news and rumors.
• Possession of prohibited technical media.
• Digital drug promotion and online gambling/betting.
• Liability of hosting providers for prohibited content.

Key Discussions and Feedback

1. Structural Legal Observations (Presented by Dr. Mohamed)

• Terminology: Proposed changing “Virtual Crimes” to “Cybercrimes” or “Electronic Crimes,” as the latter is internationally recognized and more inclusive.
• Title Clarity: Critiqued including “Digital Evidence” in the title, arguing it is a procedural outcome that belongs in the Criminal Procedure Code rather than substantive penal law.
• Drafting Style: Suggested that the texts are overly detailed; penal laws should be concise, leaving technical specifics to executive regulations to allow for easier updates as technology evolves.
• Corporate Liability: Critiqued the draft for insufficient coverage of “Legal Persons” (corporations), arguing entities should be held criminally liable for crimes committed by employees for the entity’s benefit.

2. Legal Status of Ethical Hacking

A participant inquired about protections for “Ethical Hackers” hired to test system security.

• Response: This currently exists in a “legal gray area.” However, Article 14 of the draft may address this by exempting those acting in good faith for legitimate technical testing or protection purposes.
• Consensus: A clear licensing mechanism is needed to provide legal cover for this profession.

3. Concerns Regarding Freedom of Expression (Presented by Mr. Rami, ISOC)

• Potential for Suppression: Concerns were raised that Article 39 (Defamation) could be used to suppress activists and journalists.
• Media vs. Individuals: Critiqued the disparity in penalties between registered media outlets and individuals on social media, which often subjects ordinary citizens to harsher punishments.
• Proposed Solution: Suggested that defamation cases should be civil (monetary compensation) rather than criminal (imprisonment).

4. AI and Legal Liability

A major question was raised regarding crimes committed by AI (e.g., self-driving car accidents).

• Discussion: Who is liable—the programmer, the manufacturer, or the owner?
• Global Trend: The workshop noted that the current trend favors the “Human in the Loop” principle, requiring human oversight to establish legal accountability.

Summary and Outcomes

• A Work in Progress: The draft is not final; feedback from this session will be used for revisions.
• Inter-agency Coordination: There is an urgent need for coordination between security, judicial, and legislative bodies to avoid conflicting laws.
• The Balancing Act: The primary challenge remains balancing crime prevention with the protection of human rights and freedom of expression.