Since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December last year, Syria’s new government has adopted the slogan of “accountability and transitional justice” and announced the formation of national committees to investigate major violations that followed the collapse of the security state.
But three pivotal flashpoints; the coast, the Dweila’a district, and southern Syria, have cast serious doubt on the effectiveness and independence of these committees, amid accusations of delayed justice, selective investigations, and shielding actual perpetrators.
Following a series of bloody events across the country since the start of this year, presidential decrees established independent investigative committees covering all major violation sites (the coast – Dweila’a – Suwayda). Their mandates included field monitoring, recording testimonies, conducting technical investigations, receiving complaints, and cooperating with UN human rights bodies.
Despite government assurances of independence, detailed reports have not been published. Instead, only brief statements were issued, officially to protect witnesses’ safety, without yielding tangible results or visible prosecutions. This has triggered widespread public questions about their usefulness.
The developments come at a politically sensitive moment, analysts say, with intensifying international competition for influence in Syria and domestic stability linked to reconstruction and foreign investment; both seen by many as motivations for the new leadership to project legitimacy at home and abroad.
Read also: What Remains of the Assad Regime’s Judiciary in the New Syria?
Syria’s Coastal Region
Between March 6 and 10 this year, fierce clashes erupted in Syria’s coastal areas (Latakia, Tartous, Homs, Hama) between “remnants” of the old regime and the new security forces. According to the National Investigation Committee, 1,426 people were killed, including 90 women. Documented violations included summary executions, mass killings, looting and burning of property, and assaults on civilians and government employees.
The government deployed over 100,000 personnel to secure the coast and imposed a total curfew. The national fact-finding committee visited 33 sites, met with victims’ families, and interrogated detainees. Around 298 suspects were identified, with 38 arrested by the end of the investigation. Results were announced in a press conference in Damascus, with officials citing the need to withhold full details to protect witnesses.
Analyst Ahmad al-Zein told +963 that while forming such committees “signals a clear intent by the new government, led by Ahmad al-Sharaa, to embrace a democratic approach,” they “do not appear entirely independent” and may take “unusual measures to consolidate the fledgling system” amid serious security and political challenges.
Human rights activist Thaer Hijazi warns that official acknowledgment of violations is “a positive development in principle,” but fears the committees could be “mere cosmetic tools to absorb public anger.” He points out that the coastal investigation findings, though handed to the presidency, have not led to judicial action despite “visible and documented” evidence; raising doubts about the state’s seriousness in applying justice.
The Mar Elias Church Bombing
On June 22, a suicide bomber detonated an explosive belt inside Mar Elias Church in the Dweila’a district of Damascus during mass, killing 25 and injuring 63. The blast partially destroyed the church.
The Syrian government blamed extremist groups like ISIS and “Saraya Ansar al-Sunna,” while some analysts suggested possible involvement of former regime elements or regional actors.
Security forces cordoned off the area and arrested several suspects, including the cell leader and five members. An investigative committee led by internal security chiefs was formed, with some community participation in collecting testimonies.
Yet doubts remain over whether the committees can uncover the full truth or hold all actors accountable. Observers warn that citing “terrorism” risks deflecting attention from possible state failures in prevention or intelligence lapses.
Read also: The New Syria Between U.S. Conditions and Israeli “Fragmentation”
Suwayda Clashes
On July 12, violent clashes broke out in Suwayda province between Druze groups and armed Bedouin factions amid a security vacuum.
The fighting left hundreds dead and heightened sectarian tensions before a US- and Arab-brokered ceasefire took hold on July 19.
The Ministries of Defense, Interior, and Justice formed specialized investigative committees that opened direct channels with residents to receive complaints. The committee, led by Judge Hatem al-Nassan and lawyer Ammar Ezzedine, was granted full authority, with a pledge to submit its final report to both the government and the United Nations.
But Hijazi insists that such measures are insufficient “unless they lead to transparent trials.” He warns that the most dangerous aspect of these events was “media incitement and the emergence of armed groups committing open violations without deterrence, reproducing violence and threatening social cohesion.”
Al-Zein emphasizes that “Syria’s political future will be directly influenced by the performance of these committees,” arguing that their transparency and professionalism will determine whether the country moves toward a truly unified democratic system or adopts a selective crisis-management approach.
He adds that geopolitical shifts, from al-Shibani’s visit to Moscow to rising US-Turkish competition, make the committees’ performance not just a domestic matter, but also a bargaining chip in the regional and international power struggle.
Hijazi underscores that involving victims in the transitional justice process and ensuring their representation in truth and accountability committees is “the only way to guarantee non-recurrence of crimes.” He fears, however, that the committees could be used to distract from ongoing violations through superficial investments or unfulfilled economic promises.
Between official statements promising justice and critical voices warning of procrastination, Syria’s national investigative committees face a double test: proving seriousness in uncovering the truth and delivering justice that is neither partial nor delayed.
In the midst of overlapping regional and international pressures, these committees are becoming a mirror reflecting the intentions of the new regime, and a yardstick for citizens to judge whether Syria is truly moving toward a state of law, or simply reshuffling the players in an unchanged game.
