Former Syrian detainees and their families demand accountability for abusers, February 14, 2025 (AFP)
Available in:
Fadel Abdulghany
Syria stands at a historic crossroads after 14 years of bloody armed conflict that has left deep wounds in the fabric of Syrian society. The collapse of the Assad regime on December 8, 2024, was not merely a political shift, but a turning point that calls for a restructuring of the relationship between the state and society on the basis of justice, accountability, and dignity.
Statistics from the Syrian Network for Human Rights reveal the enormous scale of suffering: 231,000 civilians were killed during the conflict, the majority (202,000) at the hands of regime forces, in addition to 157,000 arbitrary detainees and forcibly disappeared persons, and 15,393 people who died under torture. The tragedy is not limited to these figures, but extends to include the displacement of nearly 13.8 million Syrians internally and externally, the systematic destruction of infrastructure, and the deliberate distortion of the social fabric.
Establishing transitional justice within a clear constitutional framework is an essential step toward legitimizing the mechanisms designed to address the legacy of gross human rights violations in Syria. The Syrian Constitutional Declaration responded to this need through Article 49, which stipulated “the establishment of a transitional justice body that adopts effective, victim-centered, consultative mechanisms to determine accountability, the right to know the truth, redress for victims and survivors, and honor the martyrs.”
The enactment of a basic law on transitional justice through the Legislative Council, rather than by executive decree, is vital to ensure the legitimacy and effectiveness of the transitional justice body in Syria.
This constitutional framework serves two key functions: on the one hand, it enables the retroactive application of justice to crimes committed in the past (as confirmed by Article 49, with the exception of “war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and all crimes committed by the former regime under the principle of non-retroactivity of laws”). On the other hand, it establishes legal standards governing the future conduct of the state.
However, despite its great importance, the constitutional text alone is not sufficient to guarantee the effectiveness of the transitional justice body. Constitutional consolidation requires an executive mechanism to ensure that the body is independent, representative, and effective. This raises a fundamental question: should the body be established by executive decree or by a law passed by the legislative council?
The enactment of a basic law on transitional justice by the legislative council, rather than by executive decree, is vital to ensure the legitimacy and effectiveness of the transitional justice body in Syria. This preference is based on the concept of “legislative dignity,” meaning that laws enacted by an elected, multiparty legislative body acquire a distinct moral authority that transcends mere formal legal obligation.
This dimension is particularly important in the Syrian context, which is characterized by deep social divisions, as legislative processes contribute to building a broader social consensus around principles of justice. The legislative council, by virtue of its representative composition, allows for open discussions that reflect the diversity of views within society and are subject to public accountability. Legislative engagement also achieves “stakeholder inclusivity” by ensuring the participation of various social groups in the design of the transitional justice framework. Legislative processes enable this inclusivity through formal consultation mechanisms and public hearings, as well as amendment procedures that are typically lacking in executive decrees.
Comparative international experiences underscore the importance of this legislative path. Effective transitional justice in Syria requires adherence to three central principles: independence, transparency, and national ownership. The legislative path fundamentally reinforces these principles.
With regard to independence, the law issued by the Legislative Council guarantees the financial and administrative independence of the commission from executive interference. This includes protection of financial allocations, independent control over operational resources, independence in hiring, protection of the appointment process, and assurance that commission members will hold their positions without threat of arbitrary dismissal.
In the Syrian context, this independence is particularly important, as the commission will address violations that are highly politically sensitive. The legislative basis guarantees legal protection for the commission, making interference in its work subject to a full legislative process rather than a mere executive decision. It also guarantees the commission’s independence from the Ministry of Justice, which is part of the executive branch with a problematic institutional legacy. The principle of transparency is reinforced by the legislative process through public and deliberative discussions prior to the adoption of the law. This transparent process ensures that the commission’s working standards are clear and subject to public scrutiny, thereby strengthening citizens’ confidence in its integrity. Transparency also requires the transitional justice body to adopt clear mechanisms in its dealings with victims, perpetrators, and the public, and to issue periodic reports on its activities and achievements. With regard to national ownership, legislation through the Council ensures that transitional justice is a purely Syrian initiative that reflects the specificities and needs of Syrian society.
Establish criteria for selecting members of the transitional justice body based on an approach that combines competence, fair representation, and political independence
Transitional Justice Body – Structure and Powers
The Syrian Network for Human Rights proposes an organizational framework for the Transitional Justice Body in Syria through a multi-level institutional structure designed to strike a balance between centralized coordination and flexibility in adapting to local specificities. This integrated hierarchical structure reflects structural flexibility that combines standardized procedures with adaptive responses to changing contexts.
The commission is led by a board of directors composed of legal experts and representatives of civil society and victims. This composition reflects the need to reconcile technical competence with representative legitimacy, which is an important element in the effectiveness of transitional bodies. The Board of Directors has broad powers, including setting general policies, making strategic decisions, and overseeing the implementation of transitional justice programs.
The board is supported by a general secretariat, which is the executive arm of the commission, responsible for managing meetings and day-to-day operations, and includes legal, financial, administrative, media, and specialized technical units. The establishment of local offices in all Syrian governorates, along with field teams to collect data and promote community participation, is of strategic importance in achieving a balance between centralization and local specificity. This approach addresses the problem of separation between central structures and affected communities and opens the door to the application of popular transitional justice, as justice becomes a direct community practice.
The criteria for selecting members of the transitional justice body are based on an approach that combines competence, fair representation, and political independence, addressing the challenge of striking a delicate balance between the requirements of representation, impartiality, and effectiveness.
The selection process itself follows a two-stage participatory model: an independent recommendation committee, comprising judges, experts, and representatives of civil society and victims, nominates members; members are then selected to form the board of directors. This transparent approach helps to overcome the problem of legitimacy of appointment, which arises when appointments are made behind closed doors without the participation of key stakeholders.
Powers:
These powers explicitly include the right to summon witnesses, collect evidence, access official and private documents, investigate violations, and request judicial orders. These powers translate into a practical ability to investigate the facts, by possessing the legal and procedural tools to access crucial testimonies and documents. This is particularly important given the priority of accessing documents from security branches, prisons, hospitals, and courts, which addresses the challenge of accessing archives that typically arises in contexts where previous authorities have deliberately concealed or destroyed official records.
The commission’s powers extend to working with other state institutions, and the law requires all government agencies to cooperate with the commission, with legal penalties for obstruction. This aims to overcome bureaucratic resistance, i.e., undeclared institutional refusal to cooperate, by establishing clear legal obligations and accountability mechanisms.
Relationship with other institutions and consultations with stakeholders
The institutional philosophy of the transitional justice body is based on the principle of broad stakeholder participation, which is considered a fundamental condition for both legitimacy and effectiveness. The Syrian Network for Human Rights’ vision for the transitional justice process in Syria has identified six central categories for this process: civil society organizations, victims, political actors, local communities, women and youth, and international supporters. This design is consistent with stakeholder mapping, i.e., the systematic identification of groups whose participation is necessary to ensure the social and political legitimacy of the process.
With regard to victims, the Commission adopts an approach that focuses on them as active participants rather than mere recipients of services. This rights-based shift recognizes that victims have a fundamental right to participate as partners in the production of justice, rather than merely being subjects of symbolic discourse. This inclusion strengthens the confidence of affected communities and responds to criticisms of models that exploit victims without giving them real power.
Civil society organizations are identified as a key oversight element that “plays a pivotal role in supporting the process through monitoring, ensuring transparency and accountability.” This is consistent with the concept of civil society accountability.
Criminal accountability is a fundamental pillar of Syrian transitional justice, but it faces exceptional challenges in Syria given the scale and complexity of the violations. According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights database, there are more than 16,200 identified perpetrators of violations, including 6,724 from “official forces” and 9,476 from “auxiliary forces,” making comprehensive prosecution extremely difficult.
In this context, the importance of establishing a hybrid court system that brings together Syrian and international judges and experts is highlighted. The essence of this model is to balance national ownership with international standards, as the courts benefit from the technical expertise and integrity provided by international experts, while maintaining the local context and deep understanding of the Syrian reality provided by local experts.
It is proposed that these courts be established on Syrian territory to reinforce state sovereignty and restore citizens’ confidence in the judicial system, with a time frame for jurisdiction covering “serious violations committed between March 2011 and the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024.” The importance of this time frame lies in focusing judicial efforts on the bloodiest period and preventing accusations of selective targeting.
At the strategic level of prosecution, it is based on a careful prioritization, as it is neither realistic nor feasible to prosecute tens of thousands of those involved at once. Therefore, priority is given to holding senior leaders accountable, especially “senior leaders of the ousted Assad regime, specifically those in the first and second echelons of its military and security apparatus.” This approach is based on an understanding of the structure of responsibility in the Syrian context, where responsibility for systematic crimes is distributed across different levels of the chain of command.
At the same time, this strategy must not lead to the neglect of individual victims’ rights, as the vision affirms that “all victims have the right to bring legal action against those directly responsible for their suffering, regardless of their rank or position.”
Fact-finding: documenting violations, addressing the issue of enforced disappearances. Fact-finding operations are the second pillar of Syrian transitional justice and are particularly important given the scale (and complexity) of the violations. Fact-finding commissions act as intermediaries between documentation and accountability, collecting evidence and presenting it to the competent courts. However, their role is not limited to this, but extends to promoting social reconciliation by revealing the facts about the crimes committed.
Revealing the fate of the forcibly disappeared is one of the most important tasks undertaken by fact-finding commissions, given the exceptional nature of this issue, especially with more than 112,414 cases of enforced disappearance by the former regime and an additional 17,000 cases by other parties documented. The impact of these violations extends beyond their direct victims to include their families and the wider community, making addressing them a prerequisite for any national reconciliation.
Commemorative initiatives occupy a central place in the framework of moral reparations for victims within the context of transitional justice.
The plan to address the issue of enforced disappearances focuses on three areas: investigating mass graves using scientific methods that comply with international standards; developing forensic identification mechanisms using advanced techniques such as DNA analysis; and providing psychological and social support to the families of the disappeared. This integrated approach is necessary to address the humanitarian, technical, and social complexities of this issue.
Compensation programs constitute the third pillar of transitional justice in Syria, aiming to recognize the suffering of victims and provide them with appropriate redress. These programs are based on the concept that compensation is not a grant or charity, but a fundamental right of victims and a legal and moral entitlement.
The compensation framework in Syria proposes a multidimensional approach that includes material and moral aspects. In terms of material compensation, various forms are proposed, including direct cash assistance, preferential services for victims and their families such as healthcare and education, restoration of confiscated property, financing of housing projects, and support for economic rehabilitation. The restoration of property is particularly important in the Syrian context, as the Assad regime’s policies have led to widespread dispossession. Therefore, it is proposed that specialized committees be established to settle property disputes, with particular attention given to displaced persons and refugees who have lost their title deeds.
In terms of moral compensation, this includes psychological and social rehabilitation programs for victims, legal support to help them file complaints and claim their rights, public recognition of their suffering, and formal apologies from transitional institutions.
Commemorative initiatives occupy a central place in moral reparations. These initiatives include the establishment of national memorials, museums, and documentation centers that display victims’ testimonies and photographs documenting the uprising and its events, and the development of digital archives that allow the public to access testimonies and historical documents. Commemoration initiatives also include an educational aspect through the integration of the history of the Syrian uprising and subsequent events into school curricula and the development of human rights education programs that focus on the lessons of the revolution and its importance in establishing justice.
Institutional reform is the fourth and crucial pillar of transitional justice in Syria, as it ensures that violations are not repeated and rebuilds trust in state institutions. This reform targets three main sectors that were most involved in human rights violations during Assad’s rule: the judiciary, the security sector, and the military.
In terms of judicial reform, modernizing the Supreme Judicial Council is a key starting point. It is proposed that “the presidency of the Supreme Judicial Council be separated from the office of the president” and that the president of the council be elected “from among senior judges with distinguished professional records,” thereby ensuring the independence of the judiciary from the executive branch. It also calls for the abolition of special courts and their integration into the regular judicial system, and an end to the system of emergency laws that “have been used for decades to violate fundamental rights.”
The reform process also takes into account the development of standards for appointment and promotion in the judiciary, through “adopting the principle of competence and merit in the selection of judges,” and improving the living conditions of judges to protect them from corruption and political pressure. It also emphasizes the importance of the role of civil society and international support in this process, through monitoring reforms and transferring expertise.
Security sector reform begins with a comprehensive restructuring of the security agencies that were a key tool of repression during Assad’s rule. This reform is based on “eliminating the overlap in the security structure” by merging agencies with similar functions, “redefining the legal powers of each security agency” to ensure that they are subject to parliamentary and judicial oversight, and “abolishing the judicial powers of the security agencies” to prevent them from carrying out arbitrary arrests.
