Syria faces the formidable challenge of building a comprehensive transitional justice process following the fall of the Assad regime, balancing accountability for decades of state-sponsored violence and fifteen years of war with the practical limitations of a hollowed-out state and a severe shortage of judicial personnel. According to human rights analyses, the transition requires moving beyond criminal trials alone to incorporate institutional reform, victim reparations, and public truth-seeking without descending into victor’s justice.
The Scope of Transitional Justice Beyond Criminal Courts
Transitional justice cannot be reduced solely to criminal prosecutions and prison sentences, according to foundational frameworks developed by the “Day After” project since the early years of the Syrian uprising. A comprehensive national process must address the multifaceted legacy of authoritarianism through six principal objectives: providing redress, offering alternatives to revenge, establishing the truth, preventing the recurrence of abuse, rebuilding social trust, and achieving social rehabilitation for victims and society.
Prominent human rights lawyer Mazen Darwish has emphasized that a criminal investigation cannot be conducted against deceased perpetrators of earlier abuses, yet the death of an official does not extinguish a victim’s right to acknowledgement and the restoration of dignity. Establishing the truth and correcting the public record remain essential alongside judicial penalties. Furthermore, millions of Syrians left disabled, psychologically traumatized, or economically devastated by displacement and poverty require compensation, rehabilitation, and reparations.
Did you know? The Syrian Penal Code is fundamentally ill-equipped to address war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, lacking an adequate framework for command responsibility that traces orders through military hierarchies.
Legal Limitations and Institutional Independence
Syria’s ordinary legal instruments were never designed to handle extraordinary mass crimes or the concept of command responsibility, where liability extends up the military chain of command to those who gave orders or failed to prevent abuses. Despite these legal deficiencies, experts argue that trials must begin and improve iteratively rather than wait for an ideal legal order, provided defendants retain core fair-trial rights such as independent representation and freedom from torture.
Concerns remain regarding the independence of current bodies such as the National Commission for Transitional Justice and the Commission for Missing Persons. Because these entities are tied to the executive branch, critics argue they lack the structural autonomy required to investigate files touching the authorities themselves. Transparency regarding internal rules, case selection criteria, and draft legislation has been lacking, particularly after civil society input was sidelined during drafting phases led by Damascus University, the Ministry of Justice, and state commissions.
Prioritizing Accountability and Managing State Capacity
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Why can’t Syria prosecute every perpetrator of war crimes?
Q: What is the difference between criminal justice and transitional justice in Syria?
A: Criminal justice focuses narrowly on trials and prison sentences for individuals, whereas transitional justice is a comprehensive national process that includes truth-seeking, institutional reform, victim reparations, social rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-recurrence.
Q: Are political settlements allowed for former regime figures?
Join the Conversation
How can Syria best balance the need for swift stability with the demands of lasting justice for victims? Share your perspective in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for ongoing updates on legal and political developments.
Keep reading