Damascus responds to Amnesty over death sentences against al-Assad, others

The Damascus Criminal Court issued death sentences against several officials of the former Syrian regime, including Bashar al-Assad, his brother Maher al-Assad and Atef Najib, over cases related to crimes and violations committed during the former regime’s years in power.

Following the rulings, Amnesty International raised concerns over the use of the death penalty and the conduct of trials in absentia, stressing that “bringing justice and holding those responsible for crimes and violations accountable must be carried out in accordance with fair trial standards and international human rights law.”

The organization called on the government to “refrain from using” the death penalty and to “ensure the rights of defendants in trials that meet international standards.” It also said that “accountability for serious crimes does not conflict with the need to respect defendants’ rights and fair trial guarantees.”

Amnesty also raised concerns about trials in absentia, calling for defendants to be provided with “the necessary legal guarantees to defend themselves,” alongside the need to hold those responsible for serious crimes accountable, including crimes against humanity, war crimes and grave human rights violations.

Responding to the organization’s position, the Ministry of Justice said it had followed Amnesty International’s statements regarding the judicial rulings and the concerns they raised over the death penalty, trials in absentia and judicial reform. The ministry affirmed its respect for the interest shown by international rights organizations in matters of justice and human rights.

The ministry said the organization’s statement “does not accurately reflect” the nature of the judicial procedures followed in these cases or the guarantees provided by Syrian law to litigants.

It explained that the trials “were conducted before a competent civil criminal court by qualified judges, with the participation of victims and their representatives in accordance with legal procedures,” noting that “the procedures observed constitutional and legal guarantees, as well as the relevant rules and principles of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.”

The ministry added that the judicial rulings were not issued arbitrarily but were based on facts, evidence and judicial files, while ensuring the rights of defense and avenues for appeal and objection in accordance with applicable procedures.

It emphasized that the nature of the current phase in Syria, and the legacy of years of crimes and violations, impose a legal and moral responsibility on the state to achieve justice and hold those responsible accountable. It said accountability does not mean violating constitutional and legal safeguards or undermining the rights of any party to the proceedings.

The ministry stressed that justice in these cases must be pursued through state institutions and within their jurisdictions, ensuring victims’ right to redress while safeguarding defendants’ right to a trial in accordance with the law.

It said that “the supremacy of Syrian law and the independence of the judiciary” constitute the foundation for administering justice in the new Syria, rejecting any transformation of accountability into a process outside state institutions or into procedures based on revenge.

In this context, the ministry said the judicial reform it is pursuing represents “a comprehensive national reform aimed at strengthening judicial independence, consolidating fair trial guarantees, and developing legislation and judicial institutions” in a way that strengthens citizens’ confidence in the judiciary and ensures that perpetrators do not escape accountability.

The ministry reaffirmed that the transitional government’s justice process is based on the principle of accountability for crimes and violations, while stressing that such accountability must be pursued “away from revenge or politicization.”

A-H 

ANHA