As Syrians celebrate liberation, questions of sanctions, reconstruction, and political pluralism dominate discussions than any call for justice.
Yet it is justice in Syria that is key to tackling any of these issues. It is the call for justice that has transcended the revolutionary slogans, whether it is voiced as a deeply personal quest for survivors who lost loved ones, or a collective concern.
These calls must be acknowledged not only by HTS, but the international community.
Crucially, foreign states appear to be sidestepping questions around accountability processes, leaving Syria to grapple with how to re-establish justice alone.
This is a crucial mistake. Lessons learned from history, in Rwanda and Bosnia, prove that a peaceful transitional process requires mechanisms of accountability – whether through community based due process such as the Gacaca courts in Rwanda, an international process through the ICC as in the case of Bosnia, or a combination of judicial fora.
Either way, the transitional justice process must feel meaningful, to those who have suffered immense loss, if we are to see a end a cycle of ethno-sectarian violence.
Accountability Starts with the Leader
International diplomatic statements are replete with denunciations of the fallen Syrian regime’s atrocities, along with praise for the nascent phase of rebuilding Syria. Yet the focus remains tied to recognition and development.
Conspicuously absent is the topic of accountability—particularly the accountability of Assad himself for the crimes committed during his rule.
"Yet accountability starts at the top."
Still, there is no talk of accountability amongst world leaders. This crucial issue seems relegated to Syria’s “internal affairs”, despite the extensive international interventions in the country over the past 15 years.
An Opportunity in Assad’s Exile
The international community’s indifference does not diminish the necessity of initiating the legal processes required by Syrian and international human rights advocates to do so.
While Assad’s flight to Russia may seem to afford him some immunity from prosecution; this assumption is tenuous. His asylum – ostensibly granted on humanitarian grounds rather than political ones – does present an opportunity for negotiations with Russia.
This nuance, coupled with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent reconciliatory tone toward Syria’s new leadership, suggests that Assad’s status could become a bargaining chip in future Russo-Syrian negotiations, in which Russia’s concerns rest primarily on safeguarding its military bases in Syria and preventing competition from a potential gas pipeline from Qatar through Syria to Europe.
Discussions around Assad’s trial may include bargaining on Russia’s continued presence in Tartus. This positions Assad’s extradition as a potential lever for HTS, Washington, and Ankara in important negotiations to come.
Learning from the Past
Historically, hosts of deposed dictators rarely endure their presence for long. Consider the case of Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor, who sought refuge in Nigeria under guarantees of safety and protection, only to be handed over for trial under international pressure.
The same scenario could apply to Assad if Syria and its international allies exert the necessary pressure required to bring him before a court. Alternatively, internal political changes within Russia in the coming years could redefine Assad’s fate, particularly as he, now 59 years old, faces years of uncertainty amid potential shifting Russian politics.
Another precedent is that of Chadian dictator Hissène Habré, who fled after his ousting, only to face charges of crimes against humanity in a politically transformed Senegal. Though such scenarios may seem improbable in the current context, they remain plausible in the long term and will be shaped by international political dynamics and shifts within Russia.
Even the Kremlin cannot guarantee Assad’s safety indefinitely. The historical trajectory of Nicaraguan General Anastasio Somoza also underscores the potential vulnerability of Assad. After Somoza’s exile – and a warning perhaps – the former general was tracked down and killed in the very capital that was supposed to ensure his safety.
Possible Paths to Justice
Despite the international community’s reticence to facilitate processes of justice in Assad’s case, present circumstances add impetus to the prospect of justice. Such crimes, committed by the Syrian regime, necessitate innovative pathways to accountability.
Assad’s asylum in Russia offers an opportunity for a different kind of transitional justice— and it could well be historic, even surpassing previous models. Two primary paths to accountability emerge:
National courts in countries that recognise the principle of universal jurisdiction also present an avenue through which Assad might be tried. This principle allows countries to prosecute crimes that shock the conscience of humanity, regardless of where they occurred. Already, Syrian regime officials have faced trials in abstentia Germany and France under this doctrine.
Justice as a Means to Institutional Reconstruction
Processes of accountability can have positive repercussions that might convince the international community of their necessity. The pursuit of justice can and must fortify the rebuilding of judicial institutions in Syria.
This could include retraining judges and lawyers to uphold international human rights standards, creating transitional justice mechanisms such as Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, and documenting the many undocumented crimes as legal evidence.
Conditional amnesty frameworks such as those in Ireland and South Africa, for example, could incentivise perpetrators to confess to their crimes in exchange for reduced sentences, prioritising truth and narrative over punishment in a manner that encourages, if not forgiveness at least acceptance, a new path of judicial prudence in Syria.
The Long Road Ahead
Initiating legal action against Assad demands immense patience and resilience. Yet, it is a necessary step. The realisation and experience of justice for Syrians after decades of oppression, mass atrocities, widespread displacement, and unimaginable suffering is not just an reaction, but a necessary part of healing and prerequisite to national reconstruction.
Ultimately, the most fitting revenge against Assad’s regime lies in the realisation of a stable and prosperous Syrian state—one built on the principles of citizenship and the rule of law. Achieving this would not only close a dark chapter in Syria’s history but also affirm the country’s enduring capacity for resilience and renewal.
The path to this is through the realisation of justice above all else.
The international community must pay attention to this and begin to support transitional justice processes. Perhaps these actions have been shelved for a more convenient political moment, but foreign states should know that the suffering of Syrians under Assad will not forgive those affected by such crimes unless held accountable under the rule of law.
Such injustice, for now, should be the primary cause for concern. Only then, can we discuss the future of national renewal in Syria.
