HR Activist: Continued detention of captives after fighting end violates international law

The Interim Government continues to detain 1,070 people, despite the cessation of hostilities between it and the Syrian Democratic Forces, according to the agreement of January 29th of this year.

In this context, the human rights lawyer Masoud Khalaf al-Mulla explained that "the failure to release captives after the signing of any agreement, especially if it includes a clear clause regarding their release, and the delay of more than a month, carries several legal implications. Firstly, it constitutes a breach or delay in implementing the agreement, meaning that the party obligated to release the prisoners has not fulfilled its commitment within the agreed timeframe. This could be considered a violation of the agreement if there is no legal justification or clause permitting the postponement.

He added: "Secondly, there is a different interpretation of the clause. Sometimes the text is not specific to a precise date or links release to other conditions (such as verification of lists or a simultaneous exchange), which allows for delays in implementation."

He pointed out: "The third interpretation, which is the transformation of detention into arbitrary detention, especially if the military justification for the arrest has ended, such as the end of fighting or an agreement to cease operations, and the prisoners have not been released, renders their continued detention illegal according to the principles of international humanitarian law.

Masoud Khalaf al-Mulla emphasized: "If the military reason for detention ends, and the prisoners are not released after the signing of an agreement, without a judicial or legal justification, this falls under the category of violating the political agreement and is legally described as arbitrary detention in violation of international humanitarian law if there is no other legal basis."

Masoud noted, "The Geneva Conventions do not stipulate captive exchange deals for the release of captives, and that the fundamental principle in international humanitarian law is that the release of prisoners is a legal obligation when certain conditions are met, and is not contingent on the necessity of an exchange."

Masoud Khalaf al-Mulla said: "The fundamental rule in international law, as stipulated in the Geneva Conventions, Article 118, of the Third Geneva Convention states that "prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the actual cessation of hostilities."

He added: "This means that release is the norm after the fighting ends, and that an exchange is not a legal prerequisite for it."

Masoud confirmed that "unjustified delays in releasing captives constitute a violation of international humanitarian law. If the detention is deliberate and unlawful after the justification for it has ceased, it could amount to a war crime under certain circumstances."

He pointed out that "the legal justifications for delaying the release of captives by any party depend on the text of the agreement itself."

Al-Mulla noted that "the agreement must include a clear clause specifying a date, mechanism for implementing the release, and lists of names. He also stressed the need for oversight by a neutral international body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross or the United Nations, to monitor the exchange or release operations and to officially register the names of detainees with a neutral party, thus preventing their concealment or clandestine use.

Families of captives in the Kurdish regions of Syria continue to demand the release of captives held by the Interim Government through daily protests.

ANHA