Available in:
Fadel Abdulghany
With the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime on December 8, 2024, a dark chapter in Syria’s history spanning more than half a century was turned. This historic transformation, which came after fourteen years of devastating armed conflict, places Syrian society at a critical crossroads: either move forward toward building a state based on justice and the rule of law, or slide into a spiral of chaos, revenge, and score-settling.
A fundamental dilemma is emerging in the Syrian landscape today: the balance between the victims’ legitimate desire for justice and the risk of this desire turning into individual acts of revenge outside the law. We are already witnessing increasing instances of personal revenge against elements affiliated with the former regime, and the continuation and expansion of this phenomenon threatens to undermine any chance of building a sustainable peace and places the entire transitional process at serious risk. Hence, the paramount importance of an institutional framework for transitional justice that responds to victims’ aspirations for redress, guarantees their rights, and protects society from slipping into a new cycle of destructive violence.
Second: The Legacy of Serious Violations and Their Societal Repercussions
Syrian society today faces a heavy legacy of grave violations committed over 14 years of armed conflict. According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights’ database, at least 231,000 civilians have been documented killed, including 202,000 killed by Assad regime forces. 157,000 cases of enforced disappearance have also been documented, in addition to the systematic use of internationally prohibited weapons. Warplanes have dropped at least 81,916 barrel bombs, carried out 217 chemical attacks, and 252 cluster munition attacks. These systematic violations have displaced nearly 14 million Syrians—equivalent to half the population—either internally or as refugees in neighboring countries and abroad.
These numbers go beyond mere statistics, leaving deep wounds in the collective Syrian conscience. The psychological and social impact of these violations extends in a complex and multifaceted manner throughout society. We have witnessed a severe collapse in the system of social values, a structural disintegration of the traditional social fabric, and the complete destruction of local safety and solidarity networks. Massive forced displacement has torn apart the demographic fabric of Syrian cities and villages, creating a new reality of extreme polarization and demographic segregation along sectarian and political lines. The experiences of detention, torture, and enforced disappearance have left deep and lasting psychological scars, not limited to the direct victims but extending to wider circles of their families and local communities.
In light of this complex and troubled reality, the risk of personal revenge and score-settling has become an existential threat to societal stability in the post-Assad era. The experiences of countries emerging from similar conflicts confirm that the absence of institutional and organized justice mechanisms inevitably leads to the rise of “popular justice” or “street courts.” These processes are often exploited for personal revenge, economic, or sectarian interests. This reality, devoid of legal and ethical controls, erodes citizens’ trust in justice and contributes to the production of new waves of violence. This further complicates the prospects for achieving civil peace, radically undermines the foundations of state building, and obstructs any genuine path to national reconciliation.
The Iraqi experience after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime is a stark example of the dangers of the absence of a comprehensive transitional justice strategy, as this exacerbated sectarian divisions and unleashed successive waves of retaliatory violence. At the core of the matter, citizens only resort to personal revenge when they have completely lost confidence in the ability of official institutions to deliver genuine and effective justice.
Third: A Comprehensive Vision for Transitional Justice in Syria
Based on its 14 years of field experience, the Syrian Network for Human Rights has developed a comprehensive vision for transitional justice in Syria. This vision is based on a deep understanding of the Syrian context and its unique characteristics, and draws inspiration from international best practices in the field of transitional justice, carefully adapting them to suit local complexities.
The first step is to establish a National Transitional Justice Commission, which will serve as the overarching institutional umbrella to manage and ensure consistency in the entire process. The proposed commission will enjoy complete financial and administrative independence from the executive branch, with broad powers that will enable it to carry out its duties effectively and impartially. The commission will comprise specialized experts from diverse disciplines—such as domestic and international law, documentation and evidence collection, economics, and psychosocial support—and its composition will carefully consider the religious, ethnic, and political diversity of Syrian society, ensuring inclusive and fair representation.
This vision revolves around four core pillars that together form an integrated and interconnected system for achieving justice, accountability, reconciliation, and ensuring the non-recurrence of painful past violations.
The first pillar is criminal accountability, which constitutes the cornerstone of any effective transitional justice process. Therefore, hybrid special courts must be established, bringing together local and international judges and experts, to impartially and professionally investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the bitter years of conflict.
The second pillar is truth and reconciliation processes, which include systematic documentation of violations, accurate identification of perpetrators, and the establishment of specialized truth commissions comprising legal, psychological, and social experts, as well as representatives of civil society and victims, to ensure a comprehensive examination of the past and pave the way for genuine reconciliation.
The third pillar focuses on reparations and institutional reform, including fair and comprehensive material and moral compensation for victims. On the material level, cash grants and preferential services must be provided to victims and their families, stolen property rights must be restored, and housing projects and economic rehabilitation programs must be funded. On the moral level, comprehensive programs for psychological and social rehabilitation must be developed, memorials must be built to commemorate the victims, national days must be designated to commemorate them with dignity, and museums and documentation centers must be established to preserve collective memory.
The final pillar is reforming the institutions implicated in violations, particularly the judicial, security, and military institutions, to ensure the rule of law and prevent the recurrence of past violations.
Fourth: The Need for Urgent Implementation
Studies and specialized literature on transitional justice indicate the existence of a critical “window of opportunity” immediately following the fall of authoritarian regimes and the end of armed conflicts. This window, which rarely extends beyond one year, represents a crucial and golden period that can be effectively utilized to lay solid foundations for transitional justice. In the current Syrian context, we now find ourselves in the midst of this critical and decisive period, and any delay in swift and deliberate action could inevitably lead to the loss of an irreplaceable historic opportunity to establish the foundations for justice and sustainable reconciliation. The experiences of countries such as Chile, Argentina, and South Africa offer valuable and inspiring lessons on the importance of swift and systematic action at this critical stage, while the experiences of Iraq, Libya, and Cambodia clearly demonstrate the dire consequences and high costs of delay and improvisation.
Delaying the implementation of transitional justice mechanisms exposes Syrian society to multiple and complex risks, most notably the entrenchment of a decades-long culture of impunity. This severely undermines confidence in the legitimacy of the new institutions and sends a devastating message that the commission of grave violations does not entail genuine accountability. The delay also deepens the sense of frustration and grievance among broad segments of the victims, directly fueling individual vengeance. A fundamental socio-psychological reality cannot be ignored: the vacuum of formal justice is quickly filled by forms of “popular justice,” which are often arbitrary, vengeful, and lack basic legal safeguards.
The first months following the fall of the Assad regime, which are about to end, represent a pivotal and unique period, providing a rare opportunity to establish new and solid foundations for dealing with the heavy legacy of the past. During this critical period, there is exceptional national and international interest in issues of justice, and the collective memory of what happened is strongly present and vital. Furthermore, armed factions and groups are more willing to cooperate at this early stage, before new interests take root and alliances crystallize that could severely impede the path of justice in the future. Therefore, it is imperative and necessary to invest this narrow window of time to establish solid legal and institutional frameworks that will govern the entire transitional justice process.
Syria faces a set of specific and tangible risks that make the urgent implementation of transitional justice something that cannot be postponed or delayed:
1. Disappearance of Evidence: As time passes, the risk of losing crucial and essential evidence of violations increases dramatically. The Syrian Network for Human Rights has already documented attempts by some parties to destroy documents and evidence, especially in the early and critical days following the fall of the Assad regime.
2. Fleeing of Violators: Key perpetrators of serious violations are currently attempting to flee the country and evade accountability. Every day that passes without the establishment of a clear and effective criminal accountability mechanism increases the chances of more perpetrators fleeing, directly threatening the prospect of real justice for victims.
3. Escalating Individual Acts of Revenge: In the absence of effective institutionalized justice mechanisms, the risk of individual and collective acts of revenge is alarmingly increasing. As history clearly demonstrates, cycles of revenge tend to generate counter-cycles of violence, perpetuating the cycle of violence in new and renewed forms.
4. Entrenching Societal Divisions: The Syrian conflict has led to severe and deep polarization of society along multiple political, sectarian, and ethnic lines. In the absence of formal and comprehensive mechanisms for truth-telling, accountability, and reconciliation, these divisions are increasingly entrenched and transformed into rigid identities that are difficult to overcome in the future. Experiences in countries such as Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and Northern Ireland have demonstrated that delays in addressing post-conflict societal divisions only make them more intractable over time.
5. Erosion of Collective Memory and Normalization of Crime: In the absence of a clear and effective transitional justice process, dangerous threats to collective memory are emerging, including the potential for the suppression of the truth and the formation of conflicting narratives about the years of conflict, fueled largely by the normalization of the public presence of perpetrators in public life.
In Syria today, a number of individuals implicated in gross human rights violations, including prominent war criminals (such as Fadi Saqr and Mohammed Hamsho), continue to live within Syrian society and carry on with their daily lives without facing any legal accountability. Failure to hold these individuals accountable not only undermines victims’ confidence in the justness of the transitional period, but also creates a climate that normalizes criminality, diminishes its seriousness in the public consciousness, and maintains dangerous elements within society that could re-emerge in violence at any moment.
6. Obstructing National Reconciliation: True national reconciliation is a key and fundamental goal of transitional justice, but it does not automatically occur once the conflict ends. It is a complex and multidimensional process that requires building trust, publicly acknowledging the suffering of victims, holding those responsible to fair accountability, and reforming the institutions that enabled violations. Every day that passes without concrete steps in this direction further entrenches resentment and makes future reconciliation more difficult. In Syria today, there is a rare and precious opportunity to begin a comprehensive national dialogue about the past and how to address it constructively, but this opportunity is rapidly eroding over time. Transitional justice mechanisms provide an ideal platform for this dialogue and ensure it is constructive and productive, not merely a mere exchange of accusations or an attempt to obscure the truth.
In light of these multiple and tangible risks, I firmly believe that postponing the implementation of transitional justice should not be an option for Syria. Rather, swift, systematic, and comprehensive action is an urgent and imperative national necessity to build a secure and stable future for all Syrians.
Fifth: Transitional Justice and State-Building: Balancing Priorities in the Context of Fragile States
The complex processes of transitional justice in post-conflict states raise profound questions about priorities, timing, and optimal approaches. The delicate balance between the imperatives of state reconstruction and justice for victims represents a pivotal strategic challenge that requires a deep and insightful understanding of local contexts and potential risks. In the current Syrian context, this dilemma is clearly and tangibly apparent, as urgent economic recovery needs, sustainable security, and the provision of basic services to citizens compete with legitimate demands for justice and accountability, amid extremely limited resources and fragile and weak institutional capacities.
The “stability first, justice later” discourse is based on the fundamental premise that rebuilding the state and its institutions is a top and urgent priority, and that legal accountability could threaten this vital endeavor by inciting societal divisions and undermining fragile political settlements. However, in-depth comparative case studies from El Salvador, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, and Timor-Leste clearly demonstrate that postponing justice processes can entrench dangerous patterns of impunity and perpetuate cycles of violence in the medium and long term. I therefore believe that a more balanced and sustainable approach is to view transitional justice and state-building not as necessarily opposing paths, but rather as complementary and interconnected processes that organically reinforce each other, provided they are designed with extreme sensitivity and careful attention to local contextual specificities.
Specialized literature emphasizes that the concept of transitional justice essentially represents “a set of integrated judicial and non-judicial measures implemented by various countries to address the legacy of gross human rights violations.” However, the specificity of each national context requires careful adaptation of these mechanisms and strategic thinking regarding their timing and logical sequencing. Some comparative international experiences reveal that the sweeping and hasty imposition of transitional justice mechanisms in fragile and crisis-ridden contexts can lead to unintended adverse outcomes. In-depth studies of several international cases have indicated that “the scale of the atrocities committed and the complexities of the political landscape present enormous challenges that require thoughtful and deliberate approaches.”
In light of all of the above, there is a need to consider a gradual and balanced approach that carefully considers the unique specificity of the Syrian situation, where official institutions are in a state of near-total collapse, societal divisions are deep and complex, and reconstruction needs are enormous and urgent. Therefore, I believe there is an imperative need to adopt a gradual and sequential path for transitional justice, starting with the most urgent and feasible steps, while developing a clear roadmap and timeline for the medium and long term. Conversely, the risks of a hasty and comprehensive approach lie in the potential to burden nascent and fragile institutions beyond their actual capabilities, creating unrealistic expectations among large segments of victims, potentially leading to painful disappointments and the intensification of latent societal tensions.
Sixth: Conclusion
Syria today stands at a historic and fateful crossroads, after fourteen years of devastating conflict and decades of brutal authoritarian Assad rule. The strategic choices made by the state and society during this critical transitional phase will decisively determine the country’s path for decades to come and will directly and profoundly impact the chances of achieving sustainable stability and genuine social peace. In this critical context, transitional justice clearly emerges as a strategic and balanced middle ground between two dangerous extremes: the policy of impunity that perpetuates historical injustice and sows the seeds of inevitable future conflict, and the cycle of indiscriminate revenge and retaliation that threatens to tear apart the fragile social fabric and ignite a new cycle of destructive violence.
Transitional justice, with its comprehensive and integrated concept that goes beyond judicial trials to include mechanisms for truth, reconciliation, reparations, and institutional reform, provides a comprehensive and flexible framework that enables Syrians to move forward into the future without denying or becoming completely immersed in the painful past. It offers a balanced and practical approach that recognizes the inherent right of victims to justice and redress, puts an end to the entrenched culture of impunity, and paves the way for genuine national reconciliation based on the explicit recognition of the truth, not its suppression or disregard.
We issue a clear, urgent, and pressing call to the Syrian transitional authorities to act immediately and seriously on this vital path. The historic window of opportunity to establish a solid foundation for transitional justice is extremely narrow and cannot tolerate delay or procrastination. We sincerely call on you to urgently respond to the aspirations of millions of Syrians who have suffered the scourge of injustice and gross violations, and to deal with the heavy legacy of the conflict with historical responsibility. Investing resources and efforts in the transitional justice process is never a luxury that can be postponed. Rather, it is an essential and fundamental condition for building a stable and democratic state based on the rule of law and respect for human rights and human dignity.
Syria today stands before a rare historic opportunity to break the cycle of violence and injustice that has persisted for decades. Choosing a thoughtful, balanced, and comprehensive transitional justice path represents a unique and irreplaceable opportunity to build a new and different Syria, not only by rebuilding the physical and material structures destroyed by the war, but also, more importantly and profoundly, by addressing the deep psychological wounds left by the bitter conflict in people’s hearts and society. This pivotal historical moment requires exceptional courage, profound wisdom, and penetrating insight to transform the harsh national ordeal into a real opportunity for comprehensive recovery, national reconciliation, and the building of a better and more just future for all Syrians without exception. Let transitional justice be a solid bridge that leads us from the darkness of a painful past to the light of a promising future, from the bitterness of bloody conflict to sustainable peace, and from the fragmentation of national identity to the unity and cohesion of the nation. This is the fundamental message we sincerely address to the decision-makers in the new Syria: The time has come for ancient Syria to recover and rise powerfully from its ashes. This true and comprehensive recovery will only be achieved if it is integrated in all its dimensions—body and spirit, land and people, present and future.
