admin
The big news out of Damascus this week is simple and dramatic: a Syrian court has handed down death sentences to a slate of former regime officials — most notably former President Bashar al‑Assad — even though many of them are not in the courtroom. The Fourth Criminal Court convicted Assad, his brother Maher, and others of murder, torture and crimes against humanity and pronounced the ultimate punishment in absentia. For Syrians who suffered under the old regime, the verdict is raw justice. For the rest of the world, it raises questions about how justice will actually be carried out.
What the Damascus court actually did
The court in Damascus found that state institutions were used to commit mass crimes and sentenced several senior figures to death. The judge said the evidence tied the top decision‑makers to the bloodshed. Atef Najib — the security official whose brutal actions helped spark the 2011 uprising — was in custody, tried on charges that included killing children, and was sentenced in person. But the showpiece names, including former President Bashar al‑Assad and Maher al‑Assad, were tried in absentia. A death sentence in absentia means the state can declare guilt without the defendant being present to defend himself.
Symbolic verdicts meet hard geopolitics
This is where the story turns sour for anyone expecting swift closure. Russia is widely reported to be hosting key former regime figures. That makes any practical step — arrest, extradition, execution — unlikely without Moscow’s cooperation. So while the verdicts deliver symbolism and moral clarity for victims, they are of limited use unless major powers change their stance. In short: Syria can write the papers, but it cannot enforce the punishments alone. A death sentence from a courthouse is no match for a guarded diplomatic relationship.
Justice or victor’s justice?
There is real pain behind these sentences. Syrians who lost family and homes want accountability. But critics — including legal experts — will rightly ask whether these trials meet fair‑trial standards and whether using domestic courts to try crimes of this scale risks looking like victor’s justice. A rushed or heavily politicized process will leave wounds open, not heal them. If the new authorities want lasting stability, they must pair accountability with transparent due process. Otherwise the verdict will be remembered as a loud, but hollow, gesture.
What the West should do next
If Western governments truly care about victims and rule of law, they should stop treating this as a theater piece and start pushing for practical steps: secure custody of suspects, credible international monitoring of trials, and pressure on states sheltering fugitives. Smart, steady diplomacy beats headlines. Syrians deserve justice that can be enforced, and the world should help make that possible rather than applaud a verdict that may never hit the ground.
