The Rhosus case reopens: A new legal door after six years

Source: Nida Al Watan

Six years after the Beirut Port explosion, the name of Igor Grechushkin, the former owner of the Rhosus vessel that transported the ammonium nitrate shipment to Beirut, has returned to the center of the judicial file through a new legal avenue. Lebanon’s Parliament approved the abolition of the death penalty on August 11, a step that may not turn back the investigation, but could reopen a case that had previously stalled after Bulgarian courts refused to extradite Grechushkin to Lebanon.

In December 2025, a Bulgarian court rejected Lebanon’s request to extradite Grechushkin, who had been detained in Sofia based on an Interpol Red Notice. One of the main reasons cited by the Bulgarian judiciary was the absence of sufficient guarantees that he would not face the death penalty in Lebanon. The appeals court later upheld the decision to refuse extradition.

Today, one of the key legal factors surrounding the first extradition request has changed. With Parliament abolishing the death penalty, the obstacle related to the possibility of imposing this punishment no longer exists in the same way it did when the previous Lebanese request was examined. This has created different legal interpretations regarding the future of the case.

Judicial sources told Nidaa Al Watan that abolishing the death penalty does not automatically mean that the Bulgarian court’s decision will be reconsidered, nor does it oblige Bulgarian authorities to reopen a case that has already been judicially decided. The first extradition rejection remains valid unless Lebanese authorities take new steps and follow a new legal process.

The same sources also pointed to another important factor related to the stage reached by the Beirut Port explosion investigation. Investigating Judge Tarek Bitar completed his investigations at the end of March and referred the case to the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation to provide a legal opinion, paving the way for its return to him, the issuance of an indictment, and the determination of responsibilities. The case includes around 70 defendants.

According to this interpretation, the end of the investigation phase means that questioning Grechushkin is now less directly connected to the investigation process than it was previously, as the case has effectively reached the stage before the indictment. However, his absence before the Lebanese judiciary does not necessarily remove his role from the case. Bitar can still determine in his indictment what responsibilities are attributed to him, as is the case with others suspected of being linked to the transfer of ammonium nitrate to Lebanon, whether they are inside or outside the country, the sources concluded.

However, constitutional law expert lawyer Said Malik has a different view regarding the possibility of extradition. He considers that abolishing the death penalty created a new legal circumstance that allows Lebanon to take action again.

Malik told Nidaa Al Watan that the established fact today is that if Grechushkin remains subject to Bulgarian authorities’ procedures, Lebanese authorities have the right to submit a new extradition request after the circumstances surrounding the first request have changed.

He noted that the death penalty, which was one of the main obstacles preventing extradition, has now been abolished by law, allowing, in his view, the submission of a second request to Bulgarian authorities.

This interpretation aligns with what had previously been stated by the Bulgarian judiciary itself when it rejected the first extradition request. The prosecutor overseeing the case at the time focused on guarantees related to the death penalty, considering that guarantees issued by the competent Lebanese authorities could have changed the conditions under which extradition was considered.

Therefore, abolishing the death penalty does not automatically return Grechushkin to the reach of the Lebanese judiciary, nor does it cancel the previous Bulgarian decision. However, it removes a key legal obstacle that existed when the first extradition request was submitted and opens a legal possibility for Lebanon, if its judicial and political authorities decide to pursue it, to attempt a new process.

In Beirut, however, the judicial timeline is moving in another direction. The case is now before the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, and the next step is its return to the investigating judge in preparation for issuing the indictment. At that stage, the responsibilities are expected to become clearer, from Lebanese officials to those connected to the vessel, its cargo, and the parties involved in transporting, receiving, and storing it.

In short, between an extradition process that could potentially reopen and an indictment awaiting action in Beirut, the name of the Rhosus owner remains present in one of the most mysterious chapters of the August 4 explosion case. Six years later, the investigation is approaching the judicial stage that is expected to finally establish responsibilities within a clear legal framework.