Available in:
Damascus – The Syrian Network for Human Rights:
Mr. Fadel Abdulghany, Director of the Syrian Network for Human Rights, and Professor Ruti Teitel co-authored an article for Just Security magazine.
Article title: Transitional Justice in Post-Assad Syria: A Transformative Framework for Accountability and Reforms. The following are the key points covered:
The article notes that the fall of Bashar al-Assad on December 8, 2024, marked a historic moment that ended decades of authoritarian rule and systematic violence, and at the same time opened a door of opportunities and challenges for Syria to achieve peace and democracy, and to address the legacy of grave violations. The scale of the catastrophe is reflected in the documented figures: the killing of no fewer than 234,805 civilians, the majority at the hands of the regime and its allies, 181,312 cases of arbitrary arrest and enforced disappearance, 45,339 deaths under torture, 217 chemical attacks, in addition to the widespread use of barrel bombs that contributed to an “urban annihilation,” the destruction of residential areas, and the displacement of populations. The country also faces vast economic devastation; the cost of reconstruction is estimated at roughly USD 216 billion, alongside extensive destruction of infrastructure and the displacement of nearly half the population, all of which reflects the depth of the challenges facing the post-conflict phase.
The article explains that the wide-scale atrocities in Syria have produced a complex reality, one that extends beyond individual suffering to affect successive generations and inflicts deep harm on society as a whole. As for the Syrian case, it represents a challenge to traditional transitional justice given the fragmentation of sovereignty and the sharp societal divisions resulting from a conflict that lasted fourteen years. The scene is rendered more complex still by political fragmentation and social polarization, which have led to overlapping divisions and the emergence of what is called “competitive victimhood.” Therefore, managing sectarian tensions requires the adoption of a non-sectarian justice, one that focuses on individual responsibility and prevents collective stigmatization, alongside the design of transitional measures that mitigate existential fears rather than deepen them. The article also stresses the necessity of taking into account dangers such as the overreach of the executive authority, the weakness of institutions, the politicization of justice, and sectarian tensions when devising transitional-justice frameworks, with importance given to careful planning, transparency, and the broadening of participation in designing and implementing these frameworks.
The article defines transitional justice as a transformative framework employed in periods of radical transition to address widespread violations, with the aim of recognizing victims, promoting peace and reconciliation, and democratic governance, while emphasizing the integration of its tools rather than using them in isolation. Transitional justice rests on four pillars: accountability, truth-seeking, reparations, and institutional reforms. Accountability aims to establish individual criminal responsibility; truth-seeking rebuilds the collective narrative and documents violations; reparations acknowledge harm materially and symbolically and contribute to recovery; and institutional reforms address the structural causes that allowed violations to occur. The article warns against applying these elements partially, because the absence of integration may lead to impunity, or to selective justice, or to the erosion of collective memory, or to the reproduction of the practices of the former regime. Hence, it follows that the article recommends adopting a comprehensive approach that brings these elements together in the Syrian case.
The article affirms that adopting a victim-centered approach is foundational to the legitimacy of transitional justice, because it ensures that victims’ genuine needs are met and prevents the politicization of the process. This requires empowering victims to participate in designing the framework, setting its priorities, and shaping its mechanisms of implementation, in a way that reinforces the legitimacy of the new system, built on inclusion rather than the fear and coercion that prevailed previously. It also stresses the necessity that transitional justice be Syrian-led, without excluding an international role when needed, particularly in cases where local institutions are weak or lack independence and trust. The article proposes a balanced model that combines national leadership with the benefit of international expertise and standards, in line with the principle of complementarity, which supports national accountability while preserving the option of international intervention when necessary.
The article points out that transitional justice in Syria must be built within an institutional legal framework that limits the overreach of the executive authority and strengthens the role of the legislative authority, so as to avoid repeating the mistakes of the former regime. It highlights the importance of having constitutional safeguards that protect transitional-justice institutions, safeguards that ensure their financial and administrative independence and reinforce the rights tied to truth-seeking, accountability, and reparations. Despite reference to positive steps, such as the 2025 Constitutional Declaration (which provided for the establishment of a victim-centered transitional-justice body), the article nonetheless criticizes the reliance on executive decrees, such as Decrees No. 19 and 20, for establishing the institutions of justice, considering that this entrenches the dominance of the executive authority and weakens legitimacy and societal participation. It affirms that establishing these institutions through a participatory legislative process is the better option for reinforcing legitimacy and representation, anchoring societal trust, and ensuring the sustainability of transitional justice, warning that the current approach may threaten Syrians’ confidence in the transitional process and reproduce the centralization of the executive authority.
The article stresses that establishing a separate body to address the missing-persons file in Syria is a problematic step, as it may lead to overlapping jurisdictions, a duplication of efforts, and contradictions in recommendations, in addition to confusing victims as to which body is competent to receive requests for assistance or compensation. It affirms that the issue of the missing (and, in particular, cases of enforced disappearance) is closely linked to the rest of the violations committed systematically during the rule of the Assad regime, such as detention and torture, which calls for its integration within the comprehensive transitional-justice framework. Its separation, however, may result in overlooking the structural patterns of violations and weaken the capacity to link truth-seeking, accountability, reparations, and institutional reform. It also notes that the establishment of an independent body for the missing will increase administrative complexity and costs, and may create unnecessary overlap between institutions, as well as differences in standards and procedures. Therefore, the article proposes integrating the missing-persons file within a specialized unit inside the transitional-justice body, as a guarantee of unifying efforts and standards and reinforcing effectiveness, while regarding the current separation as a negative step in the trajectory of transitional justice in Syria.
The article calls for strengthening accountability within the transitional-justice framework in Syria through the establishment of a special court known as a “Special Court for Syria,” which would be of a hybrid character. It is proposed that this court would take up international crimes not covered by current Syrian national criminal law. It also points to the necessity of issuing a new criminal law that enables holding perpetrators of these crimes to account, in a way that ensures the closing of existing legal gaps. The aim of this proposal is to reinforce justice, ensure non-impunity, and provide an effective legal framework commensurate with the nature of the grave violations the country has witnessed.
The article stresses the necessity of conducting substantive amendments to Syrian criminal law through the enactment of new legislation that enables the effective prosecution of international crimes, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity, crimes not recognized by the current law. It affirms the importance that any new legal framework include a clear definition of these crimes, alongside the regulation of the modes of participation and responsibility associated with them, including command responsibility and joint participation. It also clarifies that the nature of the violations in Syria is wide-ranging and systematic, which calls for not confining matters to the direct perpetrators, but rather including, as well, those responsible at the higher levels. It points to the necessity that the law cover crimes committed in the context of international and non-international armed conflicts, given the multiplicity of actors in the Syrian conflict, whether international or local, governmental or non-governmental, and the varied patterns of violence that resulted therefrom.
The article concludes that the adoption of this comprehensive approach in national criminal legislation is a foundational step toward achieving a just and effective accountability for all perpetrators of grave international crimes in Syria. It also calls for the establishment of a special court for Syria that is hybrid in nature (combining national judges and international expertise), with the aim of ensuring a fair trial and building the capacities of the Syrian judiciary at the same time. It holds that this model is suitable for the transitional context given the weakness of the former judiciary’s independence and the absence of trust in it. It affirms that the establishment of the court must take place through a law and not through an executive decree, as a reinforcement of democratic legitimacy and to allow for a public debate in which victims and experts participate, in a way that limits the politicization of justice or its transformation into “victor’s justice.” It also stresses the importance of transparent standards, clear case-selection criteria, and fair-trial guarantees. It proposes integrating the court within the national judicial system instead of establishing a parallel entity, so as to benefit from the existing structure and reinforce innovation in areas such as witness protection and victim support, while emphasizing the necessity of conducting parallel judicial reforms. The article also addresses the challenges of cooperation on the part of perpetrators of violations (particularly those of lower ranks), and proposes striking a balance between accountability and not granting a blanket amnesty, with the possibility of referring some cases to truth-seeking or compensation mechanisms instead of criminal prosecution, so as to avoid impunity and to ensure justice.
The article clarifies that truth-seeking mechanisms can support accountability by creating an integration between the two processes, such as the use of a referral mechanism to link truth commissions with the courts. These commissions can prepare evidence files in accordance with criminal standards and refer them to a hybrid court that possesses the authority to select cases independently, in a way that reinforces the gathering of evidence and testimony, documents the patterns of systematic violence, and supports trials grounded in credible legal evidence. It also affirms that institutional reform is a fundamental element for the success of transitional justice and for preventing the recurrence of violations, because its absence leads to the undermining of the other elements of justice. It points to the necessity of conducting broad reforms encompassing the judicial and security sectors, with monitoring of serious indicators to ensure a sustainable transition toward a system based on the rule of law.
The article stresses that judicial reform in Syria requires a comprehensive restructuring of the Supreme Judicial Council, which had enjoyed broad powers in appointing and dismissing judges during the rule of the former regime. It affirms the importance of strengthening the independence of this new council provided for in the 2025 Constitutional Declaration, through anchoring its role in the constitution. It also calls for rebuilding professional competencies through a comprehensive evaluation of judges on an individual basis, one that does not rely solely on affiliation but also includes performance and practices, with a review of the extent of compliance with the new laws and the application of graduated sanctions when needed. It stresses the necessity of changing the prior judicial culture, which was built on loyalty to the authority, and replacing it with a culture that focuses on the rule of law, judicial independence, and respect for human rights. It also affirms the importance of specialized training programs that strengthen knowledge of international humanitarian law, human rights law, and gender justice, as well as the development of skills in the field of criminal evidence, in a way that contributes to building a professional and independent judicial system.
The article stresses that reform of the security sector in Syria needs radical change, because of the role the former security agencies played in repression, torture, and violation of international law, and because of the overlapping mandates of intelligence, police, and counterterrorism, which led to systematic violations. It warns against a sudden dismantling of the security sector out of fear of creating a security vacuum, and proposes separating the functions of criminal investigations, counterterrorism, intelligence, and border security, with the establishment of independent agencies subjected to civilian and judicial oversight that prevents the return of political surveillance. The article criticizes the rapid integration of armed factions into the security agencies without sufficient vetting, something that has led to violations in regions such as the Coast and Sweida, stressing the necessity of adopting a considered integration that balances security effectiveness with legitimacy, ensures the protection of human rights, and excludes perpetrators of serious crimes from the security apparatus. It clarifies that reparations in transitional justice include material compensation and symbolic recognition, and can be integrated with reconstruction efforts in Syria so as to become a means of recognizing victims (particularly if affected communities are involved in setting the priorities of rebuilding), in a way that links material recovery to the legal and moral acknowledgment of violations. It points out that financing represents a principal challenge, but proposes solutions such as freezing the assets of officials and establishing transparent international funds dedicated to transitional justice, with oversight mechanisms to combat corruption. It also affirms the importance of linking reconstruction financing to transitional justice, so that support is not confined to trials, but extends to reparations and societal repair, in a way that reinforces the recovery of victims and society. It also stresses the role of societal repair through tools such as museums, commemorative ceremonies, and the amendment of school curricula, as means of documenting the truth and preventing the denial of violations, while these measures must be ethical and victim-centered, free of politicization.
The article affirms that the post-Assad phase in Syria requires the adoption of comprehensive and integrated mechanisms for transitional justice. This includes establishing a national non-judicial truth-seeking commission linked to criminal accountability through a referral mechanism, alongside enacting legislation to establish a hybrid court that reinforces international standards and builds national capacities. It also calls for reforming the criminal law to encompass international crimes and the different types of responsibility, and for conducting deep reforms in institutions, particularly in the judicial and security sectors. At the same time, it stresses the importance of donor states’ support for reconstruction efforts and the effective linking of these efforts to reparations.
The article concludes by affirming that transitional justice in Syria depends on the capacity of society to change, and that justice and peace are not at odds but rather complementary, each of them can support the other. It holds that the current phase represents a historic opportunity that Syrians and the international community ought to seize to achieve a sustainable transformation.
