Amnesty & Accountability: Justice in post-Assad Syria
In the almost six weeks since the fall of the Assad government, the new caretaker government has primarily focused on the immediate needs of the Syrian people. However, the government has also made key decisions that raise concerns about how Syria’s new leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, will approach justice and accountability for past crimes. As the decisions being made today will profoundly shape future justice processes in Syria, the Syrian people as well as the international community should closely watch these early decisions and demand that the current government lay the groundwork for a comprehensive, Syrian-led justice process.
An Unjust Minister of Justice
Shortly after the fall of the government, Al-Sharaa appointed Shadi Al-Waisi as the new Minister of Justice, a decision that raises serious questions about Al-Sharaa’s commitment to accountability. Al-Waisi previously served as a judge for Jabhat Al-Nusra, the group from which HTS evolved. In this role, Al-Waisi enforced a draconian legal code, best exemplified in videos showing Al-Waisi overseeing the executions of two women convicted of prostitution and infidelity in January 2015.
Given Al-Waisi's past, his appointment raises concerns both about how al-Sharaa will govern and enforce the law going forward, as well as what past crimes he will be willing to prosecute. If justice processes are to succeed, Syrians of all backgrounds will need to have trust in an impartial Ministry of Justice. With the appointment of Al-Waisi, that trust is already fraying.
Al-Sharaa is currently motivated to revamp his image with the international community, and foreign states have an important opportunity to immediately establish that international aid and support for a new Syria will be predicated on respect for human rights and a serious accounting for past crimes. To lay the groundwork for future justice processes, Al-Sharaa must remove Al-Waisi from his post and install a Minister of Justice who can act as a trusted and impartial leader for developing justice processes.
Justice or “Vengeance”
Last week, al-Sharaa conducted an interview with popular Youtuber Joe Hattab, in which al-Sharaa discussed his views on the intersection of amnesty, accountability, and peace. While al-Sharaa makes references in the video to the need for justice for certain perpetrators (Sednaya prison guards are given as an example), he ultimately frames the pursuit of justice as in direct conflict with the larger need to rebuild Syria.
About halfway through the wide-ranging interview, al-Sharaa begins to discuss the amnesty that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) offered to soldiers of the Assad government on December 9th. According to al-Sharaa, issuing the amnesty prevented further bloodshed, as Assad’s soldiers were able to surrender without fear. He stresses that if this amnesty were to be revoked, the credibility of the new government would be in question. As he stated, “We gave people our word and we cannot go back on it now.”
Throughout the interview, al-Sharaa also wavers on who would potentially be targeted for accountability processes. While he provides examples of who should be prosecuted on multiple occasions, he ultimately states that the amnesty must be comprehensive, and, “If the accused was among those included in the wartime amnesty, then our moral, religious, and logical duty is to say that we no longer have a claim against this person.”
Ultimately, not every individual who committed crimes during the Syrian conflict will be able to be prosecuted. Decisions will need to be made about who will be charged and who will be allowed to go free, and a short-term amnesty may be an appropriate way for the caretaker government to address more pressing needs. However, the decision to issue a comprehensive amnesty cannot lie with al-Sharaa. Instead, it needs to be made by the Syrian people through a participatory justice process.
In the interview, al-Sharaa then discusses the balance between “individual rights” and amnesty, stressing the need to prioritize rebuilding the country. He explains, “So, if personal rights claims hinder this process, then I’d say that building the country takes precedence.” This thinking is deeply flawed. First, the crimes committed in Syria go beyond individual victims. To accept the foundations of international law is to accept the idea that some crimes are so systematic and heinous that they are in fact crimes against humanity, stretching beyond an individual victim and perpetrator. Throughout the interview, al-Sharaa frames the issues of justice as individual “vengeance,” undermining the seriousness of the crimes committed against the Syrian people.
Furthermore, by placing the pursuit of justice in direct opposition to the wish to ‘rebuild’ the country, al-Sharaa is creating a false trade-off. He says, “We gave you back all of Syria. We restored to you the greatest right . . . So you cannot waste this great opportunity just to take revenge.” The suggestion that accountability, or “revenge,” would undermine newfound peace is a scare tactic designed to prevent people from demanding justice. Furthermore, it has historically been proven to be incorrect. In fact, countries that fail to deal with their legacy of historic crimes, such as neighboring Lebanon, often fail to achieve lasting peace.
The Syrian people and their international supporters should firmly reject al-Sharaa’s framing and continue to demand the justice that they have asked for over the past decade and a half. A comprehensive transitional justice process is not in opposition to the building of a stable Syria — it is in fact a prerequisite of it.
___________________________
For more information or to provide feedback, please contact SJAC at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to SJAC’s newsletter for updates on our work