Syria’s judicial crisis goes far beyond procedural mistakes or temporary measures. It reflects a structural breakdown that has turned the judiciary into a political tool—one that excludes qualified professionals, rewards loyalty, reproduces repressive laws, and disregards basic legal safeguards. The result is a system that protects perpetrators, normalizes violations, and denies victims any path to justice.
Personal Prosecution: A Misused Legal Pretext
One of the most dangerous practices is the Damascus government’s insistence on “personal prosecution” as a condition for pursuing war crimes and crimes against humanity. This approach contradicts international law and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of grave crimes. Unlike ordinary offenses, international crimes harm society as a whole and trigger obligations that do not depend on a victim’s complaint.
The Geneva Conventions require states to search for and prosecute individuals responsible for grave breaches—regardless of whether a complaint exists. The Rome Statute similarly empowers prosecutors to initiate investigations on their own. In a country with more than 120,000 missing or disappeared persons, tying prosecution to personal complaints is not only illogical but a deliberate mechanism to close serious cases and perpetuate impunity.
By hiding behind this procedural excuse, the state violates its international obligations and risks external intervention through universal jurisdiction or international mechanisms. Failure to prosecute is not neutrality—it is complicity.
When the Adversary Becomes the Judge
Inside Syrian courts, the collapse of fair-trial standards is stark. In Homs, Hassan Al-Aqra was appointed both head of the Military Public Prosecution and head of the Military Court—despite lacking legal qualifications. This merges the roles of adversary and judge, eliminating impartiality and turning trials into empty rituals.
Such practices violate basic principles of due process and contradict Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires courts to be competent, independent, and impartial.
The Court of Cassation: Guardians of the Law No More
The dysfunction reaches its peak with the appointment of unqualified individuals to the Court of Cassation, Syria’s highest judicial authority. This court is meant to safeguard legal consistency, correct errors, and uphold the rule of law. When its members lack legal expertise—as in the case of Shadi Al-Waisi, known for a video applying a “hudud” punishment in Idlib—the entire legal system loses its final line of defense.
Incompetence as Policy
Across these examples, a clear pattern emerges: the systematic placement of unqualified individuals in sensitive judicial positions. This is not accidental. It reflects a deliberate policy that uses the judiciary as a façade while hollowing out its substance.
The consequences are profound. A judiciary that misunderstands international crimes, ignores fair-trial standards, or conflates political loyalty with legal competence cannot deliver justice. Instead, it entrenches impunity, reproduces violations, and inflicts a second layer of harm on victims by denying them truth and accountability.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
