Fact-Finding Committee Report: Legal Critical Observations

The committee failed to legally qualify the violations according to international classifications such as “war crimes,” “crimes against humanity,” or “extrajudicial killings,” despite the severity of the described acts. Precise classification is essential for determining responsibility and judicial jurisdiction.
Although the committee mentioned that the violations were widespread and primarily targeted civilians—criteria consistent with crimes against humanity—it did not reflect this in its legal framing.

Weak Legal Distinction of Conflict Parties
The committee did not clarify the legal framework of the conflict (e.g., non-international armed conflict), which undermines the legal analysis of the violations under the Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol II, ratified by Syria.

Vague Approach to the Elements of “Intent” and “Organization”
Despite documenting widespread violations, the committee concluded they were not “organized,” citing inconsistent behavior among individuals. This conclusion appears premature, as the “organization” criterion does not require uniform behavior; a pattern or a possible chain of command may suffice.

Lack of Clarity Regarding Accountability Mechanisms
The committee’s findings were not accompanied by clear recommendations for judicial accountability—national or international—or on referring cases to the Public Prosecutor or competent judicial bodies. This renders the report closer to documentation than a legal tool for accountability.

Limited Focus on Command Responsibility
While the report highlighted individual abuses, it failed to sufficiently analyze the responsibility of military and security leadership who may bear liability for issuing orders or turning a blind eye, based on the principle of “Command Responsibility” enshrined in international law.

Use of Justifying Language in Sensitive Contexts
In certain sections, the committee used language that could be perceived as downplaying responsibility (e.g., stating that “factional integration was merely formal” or that “violations occurred despite official instructions”), which may undermine the report’s credibility among victims and the international community.

Need for Legal Reclassification According to International Law
Violations must be reclassified according to the standards of grave international crimes and assessed as to whether they constitute “crimes against humanity” or “war crimes.”

Establishment of an Independent Judicial Mechanism
The state should consider creating a special national judicial body or cooperating with international mechanisms (such as UN investigative missions or hybrid courts) to ensure the prosecution of perpetrators.

Recommendation for Harmonizing National Legislation
As noted by the committee, national laws must be promptly aligned with international obligations, especially in areas such as criminalizing enforced disappearance, torture, and ensuring accountability.

Expanding the Investigation to Include Leadership Responsibility
Investigations should not be limited to field-level perpetrators but must also address those in positions of command and control, as this constitutes a form of legal responsibility.

Protection of Witnesses and Victims
The state must establish an effective witness protection system that guarantees confidentiality and creates a safe environment for testimonies.

Conclusion
While the Fact-Finding Committee made an effort to document violations—marking a necessary first step—its work still falls short of full international legal standards due to insufficient legal classification of violations, the absence of a judicial accountability framework, and inadequate focus on the leadership and institutional dimensions of the abuses. This work must be complemented by serious legislative and judicial action to ensure justice for victims and prevent impunity.

Levant – Attorney Muhyiddin Lala