Inside the Majdi N. Trial #1: Opening of the Trial and Challenge to the Court’s Legitimacy

TRIAL OF MAJDI N. 

Court of Assize – Paris, France 

Trial Monitoring Summary #1 

Hearing Dates: April 29 & 30, 2025 

CAUTION: Some testimony may include graphic descriptions of torture, rape or other violent acts.    

Note that this summary is not a verbatim transcript of the trial; it is merely an unofficial summary of the proceedings.    

Throughout this summary, [information located in brackets are notes from our trial monitor] and “information placed in quotes are statements made by the witness, judges or counsel.” The names and identifying information of witnesses have been redacted.   

[Note: SJAC provides a summary of the proceedings while redacting certain details to protect witness privacy and to preserve the integrity of the trial.] 

[Note: Rather than publishing the trial reports of the Majdi N. case in chronological order, SJAC has organized them thematically and coherently based on the content of the hearings, making the material more accessible by highlighting key issues and connections across the proceedings.] 

SJAC’s 1^st trial monitoring report details day 1 and parts of day 2 of the trial of Majdi N. in Paris, France. On the first trial day, Presiding Judge Lavergne provided general information on the parties to the proceedings and the charges brought against Majdi N. aka Islam Alloush. After that, the interpreters were sworn in, the Jury was selected, and the Civil Parties confirmed their participation. The Court further proceeded with the verification of witnesses expected to testify during the trial. Following a motion filed by the Defense, all parties then gave their arguments on the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this case. At the end of the day, Majdi N. made his first statement. He expressed his wish to talk in English, before reaffirming his innocence, describing his case as “judicial colonialism,” and raising his health condition. 

Upon the opening of the second day, the Court confirmed its jurisdiction over the case, arguing the four requirements of Article 689-11 of French Code of Criminal Procedure were met. The Court further ruled on the subsidiarity criterion requiring the Prosecutor to verify that no proceedings have been initiated by the International Criminal Court, other international courts or another State. It was determined that such verification is required only at the outset of the proceedings. 

General Information on the Case 

The Court was composed of three professional Judges assisted by six Jurors and presided by Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne.  

Prosecutors of the French National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office (PNAT) were Sophie Havard and Claire Thouault. 

Five Syrian individuals and three legal entities, the International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR), the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM), and the French Human Rights League (FHRL) were registered as Civil Parties. They were represented by Marc Bailly, Patrick Baudouin, Alice Zarka, and Chloé Pasmentier. [Civil Parties refer to Plaintiffs. In France, a Civil Party is someone who has been the victim of an offense and has filed a complaint. By becoming a Civil Party, they express their intention to request compensation for the damage caused by the crime.] 

The Accused Majdi N. was represented by Defense Counsels Romain Ruiz, Raphaël Kempf, and Léo Boxelet. 

Majdi N. had been referred to the Assize Court by an indictment dated November 20, 2023, following an appeal of the Civil Parties rejected by the Court of Cassation on February 14, 2024, for the following charges, committed between 2013 and 2016 in Syria and Turkey: 

• Complicity in war crimes committed by members of armed group Liwa Al-Islam, which later became Jaysh Al-Islam, during a non-international armed conflict and in relation to this conflict, in violation of the laws and customs of war or international conventions applicable to armed conflicts, against persons protected by international humanitarian law, in this case, conscription or recruitment of minors into an armed group, by knowingly aiding and assisting the perpetrators of these acts to facilitate their preparation or execution, notably by contributing to recruitment and/or training, participating in the dissemination of propaganda aimed at recruiting and indoctrinating minors for their participation in the armed actions of the group. 
• In connection with an armed conflict, participation in a group formed or an agreement established [...] with the intent to prepare for war crimes, among others deliberate attempt on life or on physical or mental integrity, conscription or recruitment of minors into an armed group, and deliberate attacks against civilians not directly participating in hostilities (notably on the city of Damascus), characterized by one or more material acts, specifically in his roles as spokesperson, intelligence officer, and strategic advisor to the leadership of Jaysh al-Islam. 

For these charges, the Accused faces a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment.  

Opening 

Swearing-in of the interpreters 

The interpreters were sworn in. Majdi N. expressed his desire to use English and not Arabic, and his Defense argued he had a better command of legal and political terms in English. Presiding Judge Lavergne categorically refused. Majdi N. started presenting himself in English, explaining there is no evidence against him. Presiding Judge Lavergne stopped him, explaining he would have plenty of time to express his views on the merits of the case. 

Presiding Judge Lavergne informed Majdi N. on his right to make declarations, respond to questions, or to remain silent pursuant to Article 328 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure.  

Roll call, Jury selection, and swearing-in of the Jurors 

Pursuant to Article 296 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, six Jurors were drawn by lot out of 27 regular Jurors. The Defense challenged four Jurors and the Prosecution three. Four women and two men were selected as main Jurors. Six others were selected as Substitute Jurors. 

Recording 

Presiding Judge Lavergne announced the trial will be recorded for historical purposes. 

Confirmation of Civil Parties 

Counsel Bailly confirmed the IFHR, the SCM, and the FHRL remained Civil Parties to the case along with three Syrian victims. Concerning the two brothers [redacted name], W9 and W10, who were previously registered as Civil Parties to the case, one wished to become a Witness, the other no longer wanted to take part in the trial. Out of the six remaining Civil Parties, four individuals were expected to testify in court, among them Mazen Darwish, W23, as the representative of the SCM. 

Calling of Witnesses 

The Court debated the cases of witnesses. Out of them:  

• [According to SJAC’s calculation,] 14 witnesses called by the Civil Parties, the Prosecution, or the Defense were directly dismissed:  

Civil Parties’ Counsel Bailly reported that some witnesses located in France, Turkey, or Syria faced threats and pressure and decided not to come to the trial so as not to jeopardize their future and their families, especially those still in Syria. Counsel Bailly prepared a letter with all the names of civil parties and witnesses who were threatened. Regarding witnesses, the Prosecution considered it impossible to compel them to appear and requested to overrule them in view of the concerns the witnesses expressed.  

The Defense emphasized that initial media coverage of the case was initiated by the Prosecution, and the above-mentioned letter was not part of the debate. Presiding Judge Lavergne decided the letter will be added to the case. Counsel Ruiz, Counsel Kempf and Counsel Bailly then debated the content of messages mentioned in the letter and whether or not it represented threats.  

• The Court lacked sufficient information to decide whether eight certain witnesses who had not confirmed their appearance in court should be summoned or dismissed. The court therefore decided to postpone this decision to a later day of the trial. On that day, the court finally decided to dismiss them. 

Witness [redacted name], F13 was heard by the OCLCH investigator and was granted anonymity to testify in court, but he did not obtain a visa on time. Thus, the Civil Parties and the Prosecution lost a key witness, since F13 stated to have been enrolled by Jaysh Al-Islam when he was under 15 years old. 

The Defense argued on the importance of witnesses Patrick Haenni, F14, researcher on Syria, and Céline Morgan, F15, member of the Geneva Call organization. However, Céline Morgan had expressed her impossibility to appear due to impartiality obligations related to her professional tasks. During the trial, Patrick Haenni did not respond to the emails of the Presiding Judge. As a result, it remained impossible to determine his location, and no request for mutual assistance could be issued to summon him to testify in court. The Prosecution argued the Court could not compel Céline Morgan to testify either, because she was in Switzerland and Article 8 of the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959 did not allow witnesses to be summoned by force. On this trial day, the Court postponed the decision. The Court finally decided to dismiss them on a later day of the proceedings. 

The Defense had further requested to hear five witnesses located in Turkey ([redacted name], F5, and [redacted name], F16) and Syria ([redacted name], F17, [redacted name], F18, [redacted name], F19). The Court sent a request for mutual legal assistance (MLA) in criminal matters to summon the three witnesses based in Turkey to testify in France. However, the Turkish authorities did not reply during the course of the trial. Considering the two other witnesses located in Syria, the Defense only provided their phone numbers. The Court addressed requests for subpoenas via diplomatic channels, but they remained unsuccessful, as the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated they had no means to deliver judicial documents, such as summons, in Syria. As a result, following further deliberation, the Court dismissed all five witnesses located in Turkey and Syria on a later day of the proceedings. 

The Defense argued that these five witnesses could not finance their trip to France in advance and the French judiciary should have ensured advance payment. The Prosecution considered that this issue could have been discussed during the preparatory meetings, which had not been the case.  

• [According to SJAC’s calculation,] 16 persons were expected to testify in court, among them four context witnesses and 12 Syrian individuals : Stéphane Valter, W1, Michel Duclos, W2, Thomas Pierret, W3, Robert Petit, W7, [redacted name]ا, W8, [redacted name], W9, [redacted name], W10, [redacted name], W11, [redacted name], W12, [redacted name], W13, [redacted name], W14, [redacted name], W15, [redacted name], W16, [redacted name],  F20, [redacted name], W17, and [redacted name], W18. 

[Under French law, the evidentiary value of testimonies differs depending on whether the person appears before the Court with his face uncovered or testifies anonymously, is heard as a witness or as a simple informant, or if his testimony is simply read aloud.] 

In Majdi N.’s trial, four Syrian individuals (W10, W11, W15 and F20) did not appear in court for different reasons, so their testimony before the Investigative Judge was read aloud or the video of the statement was displayed in Court.  Three other Syrian individuals (W9, W14 and W17) were heard pursuant to the discretionary authority of the Presiding Judge. [According to Article 310 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, the Presiding Judge may, during the course of the proceedings, call and hear any person whose testimony is deemed useful in establishing the truth. As they are not sworn in, their statements are regarded merely as informational and do not carry the same probative value as formal witness testimony.] 

[As a result, the testimonies of seven Syrian individuals (W10, W11, W15, F20, W9, W14 and W17) had less value than the other nine formal witness testimonies, and the Court could not convict the Accused solely on their basis. The other nine individuals were considered witnesses, and their testimonies had full evidentiary value.] The Prosecutor requested an audition behind closed doors for [redacted name], W11, who had already been granted anonymity. On May 6, 2025, the Court had issued a favorable ruling on the protection measure request, arguing W11 had to leave Syria, where his family still resided, was granted a refugee status, and belonged to a minority group still affected by recent violence in Syria. However, the Court did not grant the request for blurring the face or distortion of the voice during the audition, so W11 refused to appear at trial, fearing that the Defense would recognize him. As a result, W11 did not testify in court, but his statement before the Investigative Judge was read aloud in court.   

• The hearing of three court-appointed experts was scheduled.  

Debate on the Court’s Jurisdiction 

Defense’s Argument against the Court’s jurisdiction 

To advocate for their motion, the Defense first argued on the Court’s lack of legitimacy to judge this case. Defense Counsel Ruiz addressed the Jury, stressing the case concerned an abominable war and Bashar Al-Assad hated his people so much that he massacred them, so they had no other choice but to take up arms, as Majdi N. did. Counsel Ruiz argued the Jury would not be able to understand what Majdi N. went through because the Jurors are not Syrian and have not experienced the war. He added that Majdi N. doesn't want to be judged by France and is requested to speak in Arabic, even though the Jury does not understand it. It would be foolish and risk the court’s reputation to deliver justice on behalf of the Syrian people, Counsel Ruiz emphasized, as the Jury would have to delve into a part of Syrian history that cannot be understood. He invited the Jury to consider what they would think of such a justice, if, as Majdi N., the Jurors were arrested in the middle of an Erasmus program [European Union education’s exchange program], beaten up by police officers, and made to appear in the court of a foreign country.  

Counsel Ruiz added that the Jury would have to apply Western ways of thinking to analyze Syrian reflexes that are fundamentally different. Furthermore, Counsel Ruiz pointed out that many analyses on Syria made clear transitional justice should be delivered as close as possible to those who have suffered. It amounted to judicial imperialism, he argued, before referring to France’s colonial past in Syria. He asked the Jury if they would feel comfortable to contribute to what he called the international self-promotion of the Prosecution. 

To Counsel Ruiz, the task of judging Majdi N. was too risky, since the investigation did not take place in Syria, and elements presented to the Court would lack proof of authenticity. As a result, the Jury is being asked to play a political role in the new Syria, and Counsel Ruiz invited them to rebel against this. 

Counsel Ruiz further claimed universal jurisdiction was a weak instrument whose history is one of inconsistent application. Bashar Al-Assad will never be tried in France, he regretted, and Belgian counterparts even depicted France’s policy on universal jurisdiction as one of “little fish.” When big fish were caught, it failed; in 2011, Ndengue [former police chief in Congo Brazzaville] was arrested but then released [because of political immunity]. In 2000, a Mauritanian official was arrested but released following threats from the Mauritanian government. Both were released at the request of their respective states, Counsel Ruiz asserted. To Counsel Ruiz, the Jury was asked to be the armed wing of a repressive policy, and if universal jurisdiction was to be upheld, he requested that the Jurors keep in mind the political background of this case. 

Counsel Ruiz also reminded the Jury that since Majdi N.’s arrest and following decisions made by the Court of Cassation, the law was amended in 2019 and 2023 to now allow France to judge him. Counsel Ruiz referred to the debates in the plenary assembly [of the Court of Cassation] in 2023 and noted the director of the Crimes against Humanity Unit’s statement that if the case law had remained unchanged, more than 80 ongoing investigations would have to be closed without further action. Ruiz suggested that the Court of Cassation had other cases in mind when extending the universal jurisdiction of French courts, [implying Majdi N’s case was instrumentalized to serve broader legal objectives].  

Counsel Ruiz urged the Jury to consider what it must feel like for Majdi N. to see the Court discuss big concepts in a language that is not his. Universal jurisdiction also raises a second problem to Counsel Ruiz, that of forgetting the person in front of you. [He then referred to the vertical nature of criminal law that was forgotten in favor of horizontality in terms that were unclear, possibly due to gaps in the trial monitor’s notes.] 

Counsel Ruiz then emphasized that the Court will be held accountable before the Jurors and before history for the decision on its jurisdiction. He noted the subsidiary nature of France’s jurisdiction [in international criminal law, the principle of subsidiarity provides that crimes should be tried by the court where they were perpetrated and that a higher or a foreign court only acts if the crimes are not prosecuted at the local level] and pointed out that since the fall of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime, justice will be better served in Syria. 

Counsel Ruiz mentioned that the Defense Counsels both traveled to Damascus in February, where the word "justice" was on everyone's lips. He highlighted that one of the people's primary demands was to be able to judge their own, and the people reportedly did not understand why France would try Majdi N. 

Counsel Ruiz also opposed the argument that no justice [i.e. prosecution of perpetrators from all sides of the Syrian conflict] would be possible in Syria. According to him, there were compelling pieces of evidence [two of which were added to the case file] showing that in March 2025, an independent commission had been appointed. Since March 11, progress on accountability had been made, he added, and on April 28, 2025, the head of Jaysh Al-Islam Issam Al-Buwaydani عصام البويضاني was arrested and will be brought before Syrian judges. Though it might still need improvement, Counsel Ruiz stressed that the Syrian judicial system existed, was functioning and independent. 

Following the recent arrest of the former leader of Jaysh al-Islam, the protection supposedly granted to former members of Jaysh al-Islam by the Syrian authorities should be put into perspective. Counsel Ruiz firmly stated that justice was independent in Syria, asserting that no evidence had been presented of any alleged lack of independence. He dismissed such claims as a mere fantasy of the Civil Parties and the Prosecution. According to Counsel Ruiz, the Court could not consider that there was no independent justice in Syria today. 

Lastly, Counsel Ruiz argued that foreign victims would never be compensated in France. He claimed that only the two French Civil Parties, the FHRL and the IFHR, would be able to receive compensation, asserting that France was seeking purely international publicity. 

Defense Counsel Kempf then addressed the Court and mentioned that when he was a student, universal jurisdiction seemed to him like a great and noble idea; the concept of using justice to fight against crimes committed around the world was admirable. Unfortunately, he remarked, in practice, universal jurisdiction is subject to political considerations. He raised the question of how to explain France’s decision not to use universal jurisdiction to try the crimes committed in Gaza, even though they were well documented. 

Counsel Kempf stated that the question the Court would have to answer in front of the cameras—since this trial was being recorded for history—was whether this case constituted colonial justice. He pointed out that France had exercised colonial power in Syria. After France was given the Mandate to govern Syria and Lebanon, judges were appointed by a High Commissioner of the French Republic. In the Syrian Court of Cassation, there were four French judges and three Syrians, which Counsel Kempf described as a situation of colonial domination. He referenced Article 6 of the mandate, which stated that France had to ensure a "complete guarantee of rights" for the natives. Counsel Kempf noted that France was supposed to help Syria and Lebanon so that they could eventually judge by themselves, something they were allegedly unable to do, according to France. 

Counsel Kempf then emphasized the importance of understanding the significance of December 8, 2024. He said that the first reaction to Assad's fall was joy, comparing it to August 1944 in Paris [i.e the Liberation of Paris from Nazi Germany in World War Two]. He pointed out that the Syrian transitional government had adopted a constitution that guaranteed the independence of the judiciary and abolished special courts, which he noted was even better than France. [In France, the Public Prosecution is under the authority of the Ministry of Justice, and several national courts are specialized on certain crimes, such as the National Antiterrorism Prosecutor’s Office.] He further stated that Syria had decided to create a transitional justice commission that would allow the trying of individuals within Syria. 

He informed the Court that Article 689-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure required the Public Prosecutor’s Office to verify whether the ICC or any other state had sought to prosecute the Accused. He questioned whether the Prosecution had taken steps to determine if Syria intended to try Majdi N. 

Counsel Kempf acknowledged that there were no diplomatic relations with Syria but highlighted that they were in the process of being restored. He pointed out that the French Prime Minister had traveled to Damascus and that the French President had spoken by phone with Ahmed Al-Sharaa. He also mentioned that Syria had announced the establishment of the [transitional] justice commission provided for in Article 49 of the March Constitutional Declaration. 

Counsel Kempf emphasized the importance that the justice process be delivered as close as possible to the [Syrian] people, particularly victims. He requested a strict interpretation of Article 689-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [i.e. France should renounce its jurisdiction to recognize that of Syria], arguing “We cannot do better than Syria.” 

Counsel Kempf referred to Yassin Al Haj Saleh’s ياسين الحاج صالح description of the hell of the prisons [Al Haj Saleh is a famous Syrian intellectual also known as the husband of one of the four activists who were allegedly abducted by Jaysh Al-Islam]. He mentioned that, in one of his books, Al Haj Saleh recounted how Bashar Al-Assad used to meet with his ministers while drunk, saying, “For fun, let’s go and torture prisoners.” Counsel Kempf noted that Al Haj Saleh had returned to Syria the previous month and said, “It would be therapeutic to hear a Syrian judge describe what he has done and to allow Syrians to tell what was done to them.” Counsel Kempf pointed out that Al Haj Saleh hoped that Syria would take ownership of this process, rather than relying on international justice, emphasizing the legal and political detachment of international jurisdictions.  

During a diplomatic meeting in Paris where Mr. Darwish, W19, was present, Counsel Kempf recalled a very simple question asked by Counsel Ruiz: “Do you want Majdi N. to be tried in Syria?” to which Mr. Darwish had replied, “Yes, we personally support all cases currently being handled in Europe to be dealt with in Syria.” Counsel Kempf urged the court to send a message of humility and support for transitional justice in Syria [by rejecting its jurisdiction]. 

Civil Parties’ Argument for the Court’s jurisdiction 

Counsel Baudouin explained that both the FHRL and the IFHR are deeply committed to universal justice. He stated that international crimes were often the most unpunished and noted that where war crimes and crimes against humanity had been committed, there was no justice, because the perpetrators were not judged by their own countries. He emphasized that ad hoc tribunals had been created for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, marking the beginning of international justice. In 2002, he remarked, the International Criminal Court was established. However, Counsel Baudouin pointed out that the jurisdiction of the ICC only applied to nationals of countries or territories that had ratified the convention, describing this as a loophole. Counsel Baudouin expressed that international justice ensured perpetrators could not go unpunished. He then referenced the Dabbagh trial in May 2024 in Paris [the trial of three high ranking officials of the Syrian government who were convicted for crimes against humanity and war crimes. The trial was monitored by SJAC, and reports are available here], which he considered a step forward for international justice. He agreed with his colleague, who had pointed out that it was not enough, as many perpetrators remain unpunished. Counsel Baudouin, who was also previously a lawyer at the ICC, recalled that for a long time, one of the arguments against international justice had been that the Court was only dealing with “the poor.” He recalled being asked why Russian or US officials were not being tried, to which he had always responded, “Is it legitimate and justified to try individuals coming from Africa?” He stated that progress was being made to extend the jurisdiction of the ICC, mentioning arrest warrants—though not executed—against Vladimir Putin, Benyamin Netanyahu, and Yoav Gallant. He asserted that people needed to stop saying that universal jurisdiction was impossible simply because witnesses were not available, while acknowledging it was always difficult to obtain the witnesses one hoped for. 

Counsel Baudouin reminded the court that what was being asked of them was to focus on a specific period of the Accused’s career, during which offenses had been committed. He explained that the Court was asked to rule on specific charges. Counsel Baudouin then opposed the Defense’s suggestion that the Majdi N. case had eliminated the requirement of habitual residence [for a French Court to have jurisdiction over international crimes, it has to establish the perpetrator’s habitual residence in France. In the Majdi N. case, the French Judiciary considered that this requirement was met even though Majdi N. was in France for “only” three months.] According to Counsel Baudouin, this requirement had been upheld, the key criterion being that the person was present on French soil. He emphasized that what had changed was the criterion of double criminality: The Court of Cassation had ruled that war crimes, as defined under French criminal law, were also incriminated in the Syrian Criminal Code, which meant that French justice was competent. 

Counsel Baudouin expressed his agreement with the Defense that there were imperfections in the system. He argued, however, that this was proof that international justice could not be achieved overnight. He emphasized that the goal was for the Court to have as much clarity as possible regarding the Accused so that the Jurors could make an independent judgment with all the necessary elements. 

Counsel Baudouin expressed shock at the Defense’s statement suggesting that justice was better served in today’s Syria than in France. He stated that he had never heard such horrors as those described in Syrian prisons, where up to 27 forms of torture were used, and wondered how a human being could come back from such experiences. Counsel Baudouin further pointed out that the group Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), which had taken power in Syria, had itself been guilty of numerous atrocities that were widely documented. He noted a current state of instability and endless vengeance and stressed that Syria was a system in the process of rebuilding. Although everyone hoped that it would eventually be able to judge these crimes, Syria was not yet in a position to do so. 

Counsel Baudouin explained that transitional justice had its limits, and that there could be no peace without [criminal] justice. He argued that transitional justice could be useful but that it often sidesteps criminal prosecution, leaving major perpetrators unpunished. According to him, such impunity had unfortunate long-term consequences  

Counsel Baudouin praised the SCM and Mr. Darwish for conducting investigations on both sides of the war. He addressed the Jurors, reminding them that they were there to ensure fairness and to reject selectivity. He stressed that, far from being new judicial colonizers, they were defenders of international justice. He emphasized that the Jurors were advancing the true fight against impunity and reassured them that it was in France that the fairest trial could take place. 

Counsel Bailly added that he would first respond to the Defense from a legal standpoint and then address transitional justice with very concrete elements. He began by referencing the trial of the Srebrenica massacre [a genocide against more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in July 1995, during the Bosnian War], which took place in the Hague, with judges who were not Serbian but were Maltese or Dutch. Despite this, he pointed out, they had judged the case. 

He emphasized that jus cogens norms [a peremptory norm, also called jus cogens, is a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by the international community of states as a norm that cannot be overridden] are the most protective rules and standards universally agreed upon for punishing violations. In this respect, Counsel Bailly defended the universality of victims, norms, prosecutions, and judgments [when it comes to international crimes]. He noted that the SCM had worked to gather evidence on the ground, as well as Investigating Judges, the Court of Cassation, and others. According to Counsel Bailly, all this work provided sufficient evidence to charge Majdi N. 

Counsel Bailly mentioned that the associations he represented had filed other complaints, particularly against regime officials. He then referred to the genesis of this case, explaining that Razan Zeitouneh رزان زيتونة, F21, an activist lawyer [who collaborated with the SCM], had been abducted and tortured [most likely by Jaysh Al-Islam. The first complaint that was filed by the SCM in France in June 2019 mainly aimed at shedding light on the crime of enforced disappearance against Ms. Zeitouneh and three other Syrian activists. Counsel Bailly clarified that it was not his decision to bring the case before French judges, but rather Syrians who had asked them to do so on their behalf. Counsel Bailly remarked that the Defense had mentioned the IFHR but failed to acknowledge the presence of SCM, which he stressed was indeed involved in the case. 

Turning to the legal arguments, Counsel Bailly addressed the Defense’s mention of Article 29 of the Civil Code regarding the nationality of the Accused. He noted that the case law referenced by the Defense pertained to files that clearly took place before the existence of universal jurisdiction in 2010. He explained that the Prosecution had to ensure no extradition request had been made against the Accused, and emphasized that, according to the Constitutional Council and to French law, this verification was only required before the implementation of public action, not at later stages. 

Counsel Bailly then addressed the issue of extradition, noting that Syrian Criminal Law still provided for the death penalty [France does not permit extradition to countries where the death penalty is still in effect]. He acknowledged the challenges of transitional justice and pointed out that the President of Syria had no choice but to work with groups that had played a role in overthrowing Bashar Al-Assad's regime. He cited the example of Jaysh Al-Islam, which had now been integrated into the Ministry of Defense within the HTS government, and mentioned the massacre of Alawites [allegedly] involving both the HTS General Security Forces and the Syrian Minister of Defense. He added that Shadi Al-Waisi شادي الويسي, the Syrian Minister of Justice, had been seen only four days ago executing two women for prostitution and exhibition, emphasizing that this was the law the Syrian government sought to enforce today. 

Counsel Bailly remarked that not all faces of the Syrian community were represented in the transitional justice commissions and that there was no evidence today of a separation of powers in Syria. While there may be diplomatic relations between Syria and other countries, he noted that there was no judicial cooperation. Counsel Bailly stressed that, in this trial, he represented victims and Civil Parties who had experienced both the torture of the regime and of Jaysh Al-Islam. 

He concluded by addressing the Jurors directly, stating that the Jurors were all judges for a month, no more and no less than those who had judged the Srebrenica massacre. Counsel Bailly expressed his faith in the Jurors, stating that the Civil Parties, the Syrians, and most importantly, the legislature, had placed their trust in them. 

Prosecution’s Argument for the Court’s jurisdiction  

Prosecutor Havard stated that what the Defense sought was for Majdi N. to be released and to escape his responsibility, for the trial not to take place, and for the debates not to occur. She asserted that French justice was competent to judge Majdi N. for the crimes committed in Syria and Turkey between 2013 and 2016. This competence had been affirmed by the Court of Cassation in its ruling No 22-82.468 on May 12, 2023, after a request from the Defense arguing on the incompetence of French judicial authorities. 

She explained that universal jurisdiction allowed for the prosecution of crimes committed on foreign territory, by foreign individuals, and against foreign individuals, if there was a minimal connection with France. The criterion for this, as outlined in Article 689-11 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, was habitual residence.  

Prosecutor Havard then referenced the Court of Cassation’s previous rulings on the issue of universal jurisdiction concerning Syria: The Court had recalled that, since Syria was not a party to the ICC, the Public Prosecutor was not required to verify the Court's lack of jurisdiction. 

She elaborated that when the investigation began in 2020, it was impossible for the PNAT to inquire with the Syrian State about any ongoing prosecutions. The PNAT had thus initiated proceedings in accordance with the aforementioned Article 689-11. Prosecutor Havard criticized the Defense’s argument that the Prosecution should reverify Syria’s intention to prosecute. She emphasized that such verifications were only to be made at the stage of initiating proceedings, not during the trial, and that there was no obligation to update that assessment.  

Prosecutor Havard continued by acknowledging that the new Syrian judicial authorities could have issued an arrest warrant. However, she noted that the provisions for transitional justice appeared to only address crimes committed by the regime of Bashar Al-Assad, not those perpetrated by armed groups such as Jaysh al-Islam. 

She explained that the PNAT could only hope that Syria might one day prosecute the crimes committed in 2013, but the necessary conditions were not currently in place. Prosecutor Havard pointed out that Syria was emerging from a civil war and 54 years of dictatorship, and the country was facing immense challenges. Everything has to be rebuilt, including judicial systems. She described how sectarian divisions had been inflamed by all armed groups as well as the government. Despite the reassuring rhetoric of the new government, she emphasized that serious crimes had been committed, including the massacre of 1,600 civilians in western Syria in March, and asserted that Syria was still not in a position to guarantee security or a fair trial. 

Prosecutor Havard remarked that Syrians also wanted justice to be delivered under proper conditions and emphasized that the Court would have the opportunity to question Syrian victims. 

Turning to the legal aspect, Prosecutor Havard reiterated that the Court of Cassation had ruled that the requirements of dual criminality and habitual residence [in order for Majdi N. to be tried in France] were met. She thus argued that the Court had jurisdiction to judge these crimes. 

She then invoked France's historical commitment to international justice, recalling that in 1949, France ratified the Geneva Conventions, with the States Parties committing to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes affecting all humanity on the basis of universal jurisdiction. Prosecutor Havard stated that rejecting universal jurisdiction was to deny that these crimes affected humanity as a whole and struck at the very core of the human conscience. 

She further explained that since 2012, the PNAT has been working on numerous proceedings relating to the former Syrian regime and armed groups in Syria, and that approximately forty proceedings concerning Syria were ongoing. She noted that PNAT’s numerous proceedings has led to trials, citing the example of Syrian nationals who were sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity in May 2024. She added that French courts were the first to issue an arrest warrant against Bashar Al-Assad. Prosecutor Havard also responded to the Defense’s reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, clarifying that while investigations in that region were confidential, they were indeed taking place, along with investigations in 30 other zones.  

Prosecutor Havard emphasized that the principle of universal jurisdiction applied only to the most serious crimes, serving as a tool against impunity and ensuring that war criminals could not enter France and remain unpunished. She explained that the goal was not to replace the judicial authorities of the countries where the crimes were committed, but to administer justice in the absence of functioning judicial systems. 

She clarified that this mechanism was not unique to Europe, citing South Africa, Senegal, and Ghana as examples of countries where similar processes were in place. She rejected the notion that universal jurisdiction was a form of colonial justice. 

Prosecutor Havard argued that no form of justice was possible in Syria at present, and that the French judiciary had relied on organizations that could gather evidence on the ground, as well as testimonies from Syrian refugees. Regarding witnesses, she explained that the issue was not the inability [of the Court to have access to them and organize their trip to France to testify], but rather the serious threats they faced in Syria. 

She concluded by asserting that in a country where the death penalty was still applicable, particularly for the involvement of children in combat, a fair trial for Majdi N. could not be conducted in Syria. Extradition to Syria was not possible, she argued, as it was a matter of France upholding its international obligations [regarding the applicability of the death penalty]. She pointed out that the argument that justice could not be served in France was systematically raised in trials based on universal jurisdiction. She noted that this was the tenth trial based on universal jurisdiction held in Paris since 2011. France, she stated, was not acting in isolation in its pursuit of accountability, as similar proceedings were taking place in Germany and the Netherlands. France would also prosecute crimes committed in the Iraq-Syria region by French fighters. 

Finally, Prosecutor Havard accused the Defense of using delay tactics and respectfully requested that their motion be denied. 

*** 

Defense Counsel Boxelet replied to the Prosecution, asserting that the question raised by the Court of Cassation in 2022 was whether an extradition had been issued at that time, [and arguing the question should be raised again today] considering that the situation had evolved. According to him, there was no indication that such verification must be carried out once and for all. If another State requests the surrender of the individual, he argued that this criterion would no longer be met. [He referred to the possibility of Syria to request Majdi N.’s extradition, but the trial monitor had no information that such a request had been issued at that time.] Reading Article 689-11, paragraph 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Counsel Boxelet emphasized that the French legislature has never introduced into the law any provision suggesting that these criteria should be assessed only as of the date of prosecution. 

Counsel Boxelet referenced the Agreement on Illicit Traffic by Sea implementing Article 17 of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which requires the consent of the flag State ab initio [from the outset, without retroactivity] when the vessel is seized. Once given, the condition of consent is considered permanently satisfied. But, Counsel Boxelet stressed, this is not the case under Article 689-11, where no such provision exists. It is the responsibility of the Prosecution to ensure that this condition is met—and that was not done in this case, he asserted. 

Turning to universal jurisdiction in Ukraine, the same legal conditions apply as in Syria, Counsel Boxelet argued. In Ukraine, the Prosecution proceeds without knowing in advance which court will ultimately have jurisdiction. This demonstrates that proceedings can indeed be initiated, and jurisdiction later be relinquished in favor of another competent court. Now replace Ukraine with Syria, and you have the situation the Court is dealing with, Counsel Boxelet concluded. 

Legally speaking, extradition is a procedure conducted from government to government, Counsel Boxelet stated. He noted that contact exists between France and Syria, which demonstrates that it is materially possible to make an extradition request, pointing out that the current Syrian authorities have already done so—notably by requesting the extradition of Bashar Al-Assad. 

To the question of whether France could receive extradition requests from a State with no judicial cooperation agreement, the answer is yes, Counsel Boxelet claimed, arguing it is the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s duty to provide evidence to the contrary. For example, in February 2024, France received an extradition request from Russia.   

As for the impossibility of France to serve subpoenas in Syria, Counsel Boxelet argued the Prosecution’s efforts were limited to contacting the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but the Syrian authorities themselves were never directly approached. 

Defense Counsel Ruiz argued that the Dabbagh case [in 2024, mentioned by the Prosecution above] was not comparable to the present one, as it involved victims who were Franco-Syrian nationals. The trial was held in absentia, and the defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment. 

The Civil Parties and the Prosecution argued that if Majdi N. was tried in Damascus, he would face the death penalty, Counsel Ruiz continued. However, reading out relevant provisions of the Syrian Penal Code, Counsel Ruiz argued that the applicable punishment for Majdi N. would be forced labor and a fine and highlighted that the death penalty only applied if an Accused is responsible for the death of a child, which is not the case here. 

Counsel Ruiz pointed out that Majdi N. was a member of Jaysh al-Islam but was later excluded from the group after giving an interview to an Israeli journalist. To Counsel Ruiz, that undermined the claim that he would enjoy any form of protection in Syria. 

The Civil Parties also mentioned that the Syrian Minister of Justice had ordered women to be stoned. However, that individual is no longer in office, Counsel Ruiz emphasized. As for the Prosecution’s argument that there would be no separation of powers in Syria, he claimed it reflected a retreat by the Civil Parties. 

The Defense had a six-month window to file motions for nullity, he explained. To the assertion that since 2020, from the very beginning, the Defense has relentlessly challenged jurisdiction, Counsel Ruiz stated that was simply not true. 

Regarding the attacks on the Alawite community, the Civil Parties argued that because the Syrian government was unable to prevent or stop those attacks, it would therefore be incapable of trying Majdi N. Counsel Ruiz found this argument surprising, since many attacks have not been prevented in France either—yet would the prosecution argue that France lacks the ability to try the perpetrators? Counsel Ruiz concluded that the Defense was requesting a trial in Damascus, not elsewhere in Syria. 

Civil Parties’ Counsel Bailly replied that he was not referring to the current Minister of Justice, but to the former one, adding that the new minister is described as ultra-conservative and was previously the president of a former tribunal. Counsel Bailly indicated that these statements were made by Mr. Darwish during a conference held on February 12, 2025. While, like all Syrians, Mr. Darwish acknowledges that justice must ultimately return to Syria, he also clearly states that it is not possible under current conditions, Counsel Bailly clarified. As for HTS, they may bear responsibility for crimes committed against the Alawite community, Counsel Bailly argued, referencing an article in Le Monde. 

Defense Counsel Kempf reported that during their trip to Syria [in early 2025], none of the people they met wished the trial to take place in France, even people hostile to Jaysh Al-Islam.  

Majdi N.’s Opening Statement 

Majdi N. wished to speak in English. Presiding Judge Lavergne insisted he had to speak in Arabic, arguing it is his native language, and noted that this request to use English was new and unprecedented. Majdi N. expressed his irritation [in English]: “Is it a joke? My life is on the line. I want everyone to understand.” Defense Counsel Ruiz asked Presiding Judge Lavergne on which text he based his ruling. Presiding Judge Lavergne referred to a very old legal text issued under former King François I stipulating that the language of proceedings is French, and added that the right of the Defense [to understand the proceedings] must also be respected. 

Majdi N. said he committed to speaking in Arabic [a simultaneous interpretation was provided] and began his statement addressing all the lawyers, the entire press, and this “unfair world”. He apologized for the way he was dressed and indicated he has been in prison for almost six years, explaining that detainees are not allowed to buy clothes. His friends or relatives outside could have brought him clothes, but no one could do that for him, Majdi N. emphasized. He stated his attire [Majdi N. wore a white T-Shirt and sweatpants throughout the trial] was in no way a sign of disrespect towards the court.  

Since his arrest, Majdi N. has affirmed his innocence in every language and with every possible vocabulary. But he regretted that the justice system refused to listen to him. After more than four years [of pretrial proceedings] and after several charges had already been dismissed, only these two charges remained. Majdi N. wondered how long it would take the justice system to realize his innocence. 

Considering a trial in Syria, Majdi N. did not want to speak about the legal aspects as a non-specialist, but wished to address some considerations from a political perspective, which was his area of expertise. After the establishment of the United Nations Charter, Majdi N. asserted, the international system put all nations on an equal footing. But these are just words and dreams since, in reality, Majdi N. argued, this is not applied. 

In politics, when one nation tries to influence another, it commits colonialism, Majdi N. continued. What we call neo-colonialism takes many forms: The most well-known form is military colonization, but there are other facets of this colonialism—commercial, communicational, and what Majdi N. said to have discovered here—judicial colonialism. 

He said that Syria now has become a different kind of State. Of course, there are fighters, jihadists, Islamists, but he explained that the actions of these groups were not comparable to what the Syrian regime did. Majdi N. also pointed out that the laws in Syria are harsher than in France. 

Majdi N. argued to be innocent in any case—whether here or there. 

Majdi N. concluded his statement by addressing his health condition. He said he suffers from severe pain resulting from varicose veins and thrombosis caused by the lack of physical activity in prison. For the past four years, he explained, he has been unable to move freely and is currently in solitary confinement. The Court is aware of his health condition, Majdi N. said, requesting a postponement of this trial until his health improves since his current state does not allow him to adequately defend himself. 

Presiding Judge Lavergne stressed the Court would not judge him because of his clothes and asserted that, like any Accused, he is presumed innocent.  

Decision on the Court’s Jurisdiction 

The decision was handed down early Wednesday, April 30, 2025. 

Presiding Judge Lavergne explained that the law of August 9, 2010 [on Adaptation of Criminal Law to the Establishment of the International Criminal Court] was enacted to align domestic legislation with the Rome Statute. It introduced Article 689-11 into the French Code of Criminal Procedure, creating a new section on extraterritorial jurisdiction for crimes against humanity and war crimes, along with specific criteria amended by laws in 2019 and 2023. At the time the prosecution was initiated, he continued, Article 689-11 in its version amended by law 2019-222 applied. Presiding Judge Lavergne read the corresponding version of Article 689-11 aloud.  

The Presiding Judge recalled that on April 4, 2022, the Chamber of Investigation of the Court of Appeal of Paris ruled on the proceedings against Majdi N. and confirmed that the four conditions of Article 689-11 were met, including the subsidiarity criterion. The Presiding Judge stated that the subsidiarity criterion only applies to the initiation of proceedings by the Prosecutor. Once the prosecution has been initiated, the subsidiarity criterion becomes inoperative and does not affect the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court. [The Court remarked that this was the first time a French court has ruled on the temporality of the subsidiarity criterion]. 

The next trial report will detail the Judge's summary of the case and charges, as well as a dispute over providing a timeline to the jury. 

___________________________

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