Available in:
Fadel Abdulghany
Amid widespread interaction on Syrian social media following the publication of a video on January 13 showing an activist group called “Sawaed al-Khair” entering the 325th branch of the Intelligence and General Security Service in the city of Latakia, painting its walls, and tampering with its contents. Members of the group stated that they had obtained permission from the site’s guards. However, this behavior, which some described as a voluntary initiative, drew sharp criticism from human rights activists and families of victims, who saw it as a direct threat to efforts to investigate violations that may have occurred at this branch. Questions arose about the extent to which tampering with the documents would affect the search for the truth and the accountability of the perpetrators, and about why the authorities (if they had indeed given permission) allowed an unauthorized party to enter such a sensitive site.
According to consistent accounts and published video clips, the “Sawaed al-Khair” group entered the aforementioned security branch headquarters under the pretext of “rehabilitating the building” and cleaning it. However, the Syrian Network for Human Rights warned, in an official statement, of the repercussions of this unregulated entry. It clarified that the headquarters is considered a place of detention where numerous arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances have been documented since the beginning of the conflict, and is therefore a crime scene. It called on the Syrian authorities to open an investigation into the “Sawaed al-Khair” group and disclose its findings to the public. Despite attempts to communicate with the authorities in Latakia province, no clear official comment has been issued specifying the authority that allowed the group to enter the building. Scattered statements have been limited to calls for “cooperation in the interests of the city’s residents,” without specifying any controls for preserving the documents deposited in the branch.
Significance and general context
The problem with civilian groups entering sensitive security centers is not limited to the fact that it is a “voluntary act.” The problem is that these sites may contain evidence documenting serious violations, such as arbitrary detention, torture, and enforced disappearance. Any tampering with or destruction of documents, even if unintentional, may hinder victims and their families from accessing the truth about what happened and threaten the credibility of investigations before national or international courts. In this context, experts place the responsibility on the transitional or local authorities, which are supposed to be in charge of securing sensitive sites and managing access to them according to clear legal rules. Human rights activists warn that the authorities’ leniency in this incident may encourage other groups to repeat the same behavior, increasing the risk of the disappearance of evidence that is crucial to justice.
Controls on access to crime scenes
Access to crime scenes is governed by a set of strict international protocols, including the Bournemouth Protocol for the Protection and Investigation of Mass Graves, which aims to standardize legal and procedural standards to ensure the protection of these sensitive sites from any illegal interference and to preserve the evidence they contain, The Istanbul Protocol on the investigation of allegations of torture, the Minnesota Protocol on the investigation of unlawful deaths, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which criminalizes any act that obstructs the course of justice, including the destruction or alteration of evidence in a manner that may compromise its probative value. Under these protocols, only legally authorized groups, such as law enforcement officers, forensic experts, medical examiners, and prosecutors, are allowed on site. These groups are determined based on their respective roles in documenting and analyzing evidence, as well as ensuring compliance with established legal standards for information gathering.
For example, law enforcement officers are responsible for declaring the site a crime scene, securing its boundaries, and controlling access, while forensic experts have the tools and expertise necessary to collect evidence in a manner that preserves its admissibility in court. These protocols emphasize the need to obtain formal approvals before entering a site, including obtaining search warrants in cases involving private property rights or security concerns that require protecting evidence from tampering and loss. Furthermore, these procedures pay special attention to sensitive sites such as mass graves and detention centers, which require additional international standards to impose strict control over access and prevent the leakage or transfer of evidence in unregulated ways.
In Syria, tampering with a crime scene is not explicitly treated as a crime in its own right under the current Penal Code
Measures to preserve the integrity of the crime scene
Compliance with crime scene security protocols is of utmost importance given the frequent risks of evidence being lost or contaminated, especially in the Syrian case, which has witnessed a huge number of violations over the past 14 years, leaving behind a large number of victims. According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights database, there are still around 115,000 Syrian citizens who have been forcibly disappeared by the Assad regime alone. It is impossible to imagine the suffering of these families when they see the crime scenes being tampered with. Therefore, relevant international bodies, as well as numerous human rights organizations, recommend adopting specific measures to prevent unauthorized access, including restricting entry, surrounding the site with clear physical barriers, and documenting the identity of every individual entering or leaving the area. In emergency situations, medical teams may be allowed direct access to save lives, provided that every step is documented to prevent the loss or distortion of evidence. These protocols also insist on the need to assign trained guards to sensitive sites and to ensure the creation of a special chain of custody record, which records the name of each person who handles the evidence, the time of receipt, and the entity to which it was subsequently delivered.
These measures should be accompanied by a more comprehensive system aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of the judicial process in holding perpetrators accountable, including the application of best practices in forensic medicine and the preservation of biological samples and official documents. As a result of the widespread violations that have taken place in the country, Syrian and international human rights organizations play a fundamental role in raising awareness of the necessity of these measures, as well as supporting transitional or local authorities by providing the necessary resources, developing the capacities of field personnel, and establishing a clear legal framework that imposes severe penalties on anyone who violates the sanctity of these sites or tamper with evidence in any way.
Legal responsibilities
In Syria, tampering with or altering a crime scene is not explicitly treated as a crime in its own right under the current penal code. However, such acts are indirectly criminalized through broader legal provisions relating to obstruction of justice, concealment of evidence, and undermining investigations. The Syrian Penal Code contains provisions criminalizing acts that obstruct justice or destroy evidence. For example, Article 535 provides for severe penalties, including the death penalty, for intentional crimes involving tampering with evidence to conceal other crimes.
Tampering with a crime scene is a serious criminal offense in many legal systems around the world. In the United States, federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1519) punishes tampering with evidence with up to 20 years in prison, while some state laws, such as Texas law (§37.09), impose even harsher penalties for destroying evidence involving human remains, with up to 20 years in prison. In Germany, the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) addresses this crime under Articles 136 on the destruction of confiscated property and 258 on obstruction of justice. In France, Article 434-4 of the Penal Code stipulates that altering or concealing evidence with the intent to mislead investigations is punishable by imprisonment and a fine, while Article 222-33-3 criminalizes the recording or publication of images related to the crime in a manner that harms the dignity of the victims. In the Netherlands, obstruction of justice through tampering with evidence is classified as a crime under Article 189 of the Penal Code, with the possibility of imprisonment for up to six years depending on the circumstances of the case. In Canada, section 137 of the Criminal Code prohibits fabricating evidence with intent to mislead, with penalties of up to 14 years in prison, and section 129(a) criminalizes obstructing police duties at the scene of a crime. Similarly, Australia’s Crimes Act (Section 317 of the Crimes Act 1900) provides for a penalty of up to ten years’ imprisonment for tampering with evidence. Finally, New Zealand’s Crimes Act 1961 (section 113) imposes a penalty of up to seven years for anyone who falsifies evidence to mislead judicial proceedings.
Tampering with a crime scene is a serious criminal offense in many legal systems around the world.
The above laws place direct responsibility on the authorities (governmental or local transitional) to prevent unauthorized persons from entering these sites and to hold those responsible accountable for negligence or even collusion in obscuring facts that concern the victims and their families.
Past events: effects and repercussions
1- Impact on the course of criminal investigations: Legal experts believe that unauthorized access to a site that may be the scene of an international crime could tamper with evidence or disrupt the chain of custody necessary to ensure that such evidence is admissible in any trial.
2- Risk of evidence being lost or contaminated: The building may contain documents, arrest warrants, and records of detainees’ names, which means that losing them or moving them from their original location without following proper procedures poses a serious threat to the possibility of uncovering the truth. This means losing a valuable opportunity to learn how the arrests were carried out and the nature of the violations, as well as to identify those responsible.
Rushing to inspect or photograph the site without following precise rules may damage criminal evidence.
3- Impact on the rights of detainees and families of the missing: Revealing the fate of detainees and finding out what they have been subjected to is a major priority for the families of the victims. Any random intervention in the security headquarters deprives the families of detainees of a potential window of justice, especially if this opportunity is lost and there is no longer any evidence to support their claims or help prove that they or their relatives have been subjected to any violations.
Conclusion
The incident of activists painting the walls of a security branch is an example of the recurring conflict between the vital role of the media and activists in exposing violations and the urgent need to preserve crime scenes, such as prisons, security branches, and mass graves in Syria. While media coverage helps to uncover hidden crimes, rushing to inspect or photograph a site without following strict rules can damage criminal evidence. In the context of transitional justice, which aims to prosecute perpetrators and restore the social fabric, protecting crime evidence becomes a top priority. Therefore, any random action may negatively affect the rights of victims and undermine reconciliation efforts based on “documenting and establishing facts” before the accountability phase.
In light of these developments, there appears to be an urgent need for the current Syrian government to establish clear controls governing access to crime scenes and to designate a judicial body to oversee this. The success of any transitional justice process in Syria requires respect for crime scenes and the preservation of their contents. If the ruling or transitional authorities do not immediately assume their responsibilities, they may find themselves faced with an accumulation of similar incidents, further complicating the task of uncovering the truth, bringing justice to victims, and holding perpetrators accountable.
