The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) has issued a sharp legal challenge to a recent general amnesty decree, urging a formal constitutional review and warning that vague language in the measure could jeopardize future accountability efforts.
In a statement released Saturday, the organization raised significant concerns about Decree No. 39 of 2026, which grants a general amnesty for crimes committed before February 18. According to SNHR’s legal analysis, the decree suffers from fundamental constitutional and procedural defects that threaten the rule of law during Syria’s fragile transitional phase.
At the heart of the objection is the process by which the amnesty was issued. Under the transitional constitutional declaration, SNHR argues, the authority to approve a general amnesty—an act with sweeping implications for rights and public order—rests with the People’s Assembly. The President’s powers, by contrast, are limited to granting individual pardons or restoring civil rights.
“Issuing a general amnesty by decree raises serious questions about the competent authority and the proper legal instrument to be followed,” the statement said. “This could amount to a defect in jurisdiction that strikes at the heart of the constitutional legitimacy of the procedure.”
The network stressed that respecting the separation of powers is essential to safeguarding the rule of law, particularly in a period of political transition. Bypassing these procedures, it warned, risks undermining public trust and opening the door to inconsistent interpretations during implementation.
Ambiguity Over ‘Gross Violations’ Exception
Beyond procedural concerns, SNHR expressed alarm over the decree’s substantive content—specifically its exclusion of “gross violations against the Syrian people.” The organization cautioned that the phrase is dangerously vague and could be interpreted in conflicting ways unless defined by clear legal standards.
SNHR called for precise criteria to determine what constitutes a gross violation, who falls under the exception, and how it should be applied. Without such clarity, the group warned, the decree could inadvertently weaken accountability mechanisms and harm victims’ rights.
“Any framework for a wide-ranging amnesty must be accompanied by specific objective criteria and transparent procedures to ensure consistent application,” the statement said. This, it argued, is essential to “prevent disparities in interpretation, preserve the rights of victims, and avoid unintended consequences on the path to accountability and ending impunity.”
Calls for Review and Judicial Oversight
SNHR outlined three key demands. First, it called for a review of the decree’s constitutional and procedural basis to ensure compliance with the transitional declaration and to address concerns about jurisdictional overreach. Second, it urged the government to clarify the definitions and criteria governing the “gross violations” exception and to make the mechanisms for applying it public, transparent, and reviewable.
Finally, the organization insisted that all steps related to the amnesty must align with Syria’s stated commitments to victim-centered transitional justice and accountability. It emphasized that decisions related to the decree’s implementation must be subject to judicial oversight and open to challenge—an essential safeguard, it said, against arbitrariness and rights violations.
SNHR concluded that addressing the legacy of past abuses and reforming the justice sector requires a disciplined legal approach—one that balances the need for stability with the imperatives of constitutional legitimacy and the protection of victims’ rights. Only such an approach, it argued, can lay the foundations for a genuine state governed by law.
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.
