As the dust settles after the collapse of the Syrian regime, a critical question emerges: can those responsible for years of war crimes and human rights violations be held accountable? With over 14 years of brutal repression, the international community is increasingly focused on pursuing justice for the victims. Many of these acts, ranging from war crimes to crimes against humanity, demand immediate legal reckoning.
The call for accountability has never been more urgent, as European countries intensify efforts to bring these perpetrators to justice, opening new avenues for potential trials and extraditions. But what does this path to justice really look like, and what obstacles stand in the way?
Read also: Syria: UN Uncovers 100 Torture Sites Linked to Assad Regime
Options and Obstacles
Dr. Raeq Shaalan, a professor of international law, stated in the eighth issue of +963 that “war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity are recognized as international crimes of the utmost severity, concerning the global community as a whole.” He noted that during Syria’s years of armed conflict, such crimes were committed extensively, necessitating criminal accountabilities for all involved, whether inside or outside Syria.
Regarding the transitional Syrian government’s options for pursuing and retrieving these criminals, Dr. Shaalan outlined several paths: requesting extradition from countries harbouring these individuals, based on either bilateral treaties or multilateral agreements such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions; seeking the intervention of the UN Security Council to mandate their handover; cooperating with the International Criminal Court, which has jurisdiction over such serious crimes; or establishing a hybrid tribunal in Damascus composed of both Syrian and international judges.
However, he warned that significant hurdles stand in the way. Some states might reject extradition requests, citing concerns about the lack of judicial guarantees for a fair trial in Syria. Additionally, several countries have granted political asylum to individuals accused of grave offenses, shielding them from extradition.
While Syria’s Penal Code (Legislative Decree No. 148 of 1949) has undergone multiple amendments, it still contains provisions that could be leveraged to prosecute war criminals domestically.
Read also: Syrian Foreign Minister Calls for Domestic Accountability Mechanisms Amid UN Justice Talks
Special Courts with International Standards
Hussam Sarhan, a member of the Executive Office of the Syrian Lawyers’ Union, agrees with Dr. Shaalan on the necessity of establishing special courts comprised of local and international judges to prosecute crimes committed in Syria since 2011. Sarhan emphasized that these courts should be founded on the mechanisms of the International Criminal Court and the criminal provisions outlined in the Rome Statute, overseen by judges renowned for their integrity, impartiality, and independence.
Speaking to +963, Sarhan also stressed that international law mandates the extradition of individuals accused of crimes against humanity, provided that fair trial standards are met. However, he expressed scepticism about Russia’s willingness to hand over senior former regime officials, many of whom it has sheltered. Given Russia’s role in backing the former regime and its own vulnerability to international scrutiny, extradition remains highly unlikely.
Syria’s Military Penal Code, as amended since 1950, imposes severe penalties for crimes committed by military personnel. Article 154, for example, stipulates that any soldier who unlawfully kills a civilian faces the death penalty. In addition, Law No. 7 of 1958 outlines the prosecution of senior officials for corruption and serious violations.
Mahmoud Al-Hammam, a lawyer with the Aleppo Bar Association, told +963 that transitional justice mechanisms typically rely on bilateral or multilateral agreements and various international channels, most notably Interpol. While global treaties provide frameworks for prosecuting war criminals worldwide, enforcement often selectively targets lower-level perpetrators, while high-ranking officials implicated in war crimes and crimes against humanity frequently evade accountability, a pattern seen repeatedly over recent decades.
