Syrians, seek justice - but true justice!

A gallows had been erected by protesters in front of the Palace of Justice in Damascus. It was Sunday, April 27th, in the Syrian capital: a large crowd was present at the first hearing of trials intended to determine the fate of criminals from Bashar al-Assad's fallen regime. The protesters were crying for revenge: they would not have hesitated to carry out their own justice! This speaks to the overheated general atmosphere that could cast doubt on the course of future developments. A special tribunal for Syria, modeled on the one established for former Yugoslavia, would have raised fewer concerns.

None of this bodes well for the Alawite community that held the reins of power for over 50 years and is blamed for the repression that wreaked havoc on the population.

Current Situation

It was therefore to be expected that the current Syrian judicial system would reflect the state of a country still healing the wounds of civil war. This war remains omnipresent in the minds of survivors, and its events will continue to haunt individuals and various groups for a long time to come.

Another factor that also works against fairness and reconciliation: Syrian justice, taken as a whole, had not been truly 'independent' since the Baath party came to power. In fact, since the 1960s, judges were under the thumb of the regime—and that says it all! Five decades of subjection to the regime of Hafez and Bashar al-Assad would not generate a class of judges with integrity, professionally qualified to judge, and fiercely independent.

To this we must add, as one observer notes, that the judicial machinery has been constituted at this precise moment around a 'heterogeneous constellation of mechanisms: unprecedented national transitional justice processes, local truth-seeking initiatives that are often informal, both reactive and fragile, promises of future trials, as well as an unprecedented diversification of international judicial activity'.

A Two-Tiered Justice System

Indeed, it must not be forgotten that trials of the fallen regime's criminals had begun in Europe before the first hearing took place in Damascus last month. Under the principle of 'universal jurisdiction,' certain European countries were able to prosecute crimes that were not committed on their territories. While France issued arrest warrants against Bashar al-Assad, his brother Maher, and others, German courts in Koblenz, Stuttgart, and Frankfurt did not hesitate to condemn Syrian officials to prison sentences, two of them to life imprisonment.

Lucky men, these fugitives who had appeared before European justice: they did not risk the death penalty and their detention conditions remained far more acceptable than those prevailing in the prisons of Damascus.

An Eye for an Eye?

All the more reason to fear the application of the law of retaliation in what should now be called the 'Damascus Trials'—trials that will detail the horrors of the overthrown regime. The next hearing will be held on May 10th: it will rule on the fate of Major General Atef Najib, cousin of President Bashar al-Assad and former head of political security in Deraa, the birthplace of the 2011 uprising.

So, how can one ensure serenity in the courtrooms when the crimes of this torturer of children are revealed in detail? And to what extent will Ahmad al-Shara's government be able to contain the groundswell of demands coming from Aleppo, Homs, and Hama for immediate executions on Marjeh Square?*

*This same square where Arab nationalists were hanged in 1916 and the spy Eli Cohen in 1965.