Observation report of the second public trial of Atef Najib and several other fugitive defendants
held on 10 May 2026 at Damascus Courthouse – Fourth Criminal Chamber
My Rights Foundation
On 10 May 2026, the Fourth Criminal Chamber in Damascus held the second hearing in the trial of the accused, Atef Najib, in the case concerning violations committed during the events in Daraa in 2011. This case is considered one of the most important and sensitive judicial proceedings in Syria’s justice and accountability efforts. The hearing was devoted to the interrogation of the accused in accordance with the provisions of the Syrian Code of Criminal Procedure.
This procedural stage is a fundamental phase of the criminal trial, aimed at confronting the accused with the facts, evidence, and charges against him, while allowing him to present his defense, statements, and responses to the contents of the file, in accordance with the principles of fair trial guarantees and the right to defense.
This trial is of exceptional importance in the Syrian context, not only because of the nature of the alleged crimes, but also because of the legal and political significance of holding a public trial of security and political officials who, for decades, were considered virtually immune from prosecution. Many Syrian human rights defenders see the transfer of serious violations from a sphere of denial and impunity to one of public judicial oversight as an important development that can serve as a basis for future transitional justice and rule-of-law efforts. Moreover, the fact that these proceedings are taking place before an ordinary civilian court, rather than before an emergency or security court, is itself a positive indicator and raises cautious hopes that the normal role of justice will be restored after decades of politicization and security interference.
According to the observations made during the hearing, the Court first confirmed the personal presence of the accused Atef Najib, while noting the absence of the other wanted and fugitive defendants, namely: Bashar Hafez al-Assad, Maher Hafez al-Assad, Fahd Jassem al-Freij, Mohammad Ayman Ayoush, Louay Ali al-Ali, Qusai al-Mahyoub, Wafiq Saleh Nasser and Talal Fares al-Eisami. After formally declaring the accused absent and noting their non-appearance, the Court decided to continue the proceedings against them in absentia, in accordance with the provisions of the Syrian Code of Criminal Procedure governing the trial of fugitives.
The Court then proceeded to read the indictment and the main facts of the case. The prosecution presented charges relating to arbitrary arrests, torture, excessive use of force, and the shooting of civilians and peaceful protesters during the events in Daraa in 2011, while referring to the alleged responsibilities of each defendant, depending on their security or administrative position at the time. The prosecution also argued that the alleged acts constituted serious human rights violations and could, according to its legal characterization, amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes.
During the hearing, the prosecution requested the continuation of proceedings against the fugitive accused and the application of legal measures related to their status as fugitives. In response, the Court ordered the deprivation of the absent defendants’ civil rights and placed their movable and immovable property under the administration of the State, as precautionary measures provided for under Syrian law in major criminal cases involving fugitives. The Court also confirmed the continuation of the proceedings in absentia and maintained all summons and judicial proceedings in force against the absent defendants.
At a later stage of the hearing, the President of the Court read out a summary of the charges against Atef Najib, stating that the acts of which he is accused, together with those of the other absent defendants, amounted to violations including killings, torture, arbitrary detentions and the use of force against civilians. The court also referred to his alleged command responsibility in his capacity as head of the Political Security Branch in Daraa during this period, including allegations relating to the issuance of direct orders for arrests and the use of force during the repression of demonstrations.
The Court then proceeded to a preliminary examination of the accused as well as the hearing of several statements and testimonies related to the case, before deciding to suspend live broadcasting and exclude the media during certain phases of the hearing of witnesses, citing the need to preserve the confidentiality of certain proceedings and to ensure the proper conduct of the trial. The hearing brought together lawyers, human rights defenders, relatives of victims as well as representatives of bodies concerned with transitional justice, which gave the proceedings a broader legal and humanitarian dimension.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court decided to postpone the hearing of the case to Tuesday, 19 May 2026 in order to continue the proceedings, hear further pleadings and testimony, and continue the examination of the case, while maintaining the proceedings against the absent defendants in accordance with the rules applicable to trials in absentia.
The launch of a genuine transitional justice process offers hope that a future Syria will no longer be a space of impunity and that serious efforts will be made to ensure justice and reparation for the victims and their families. Nevertheless, despite the symbolic and legal importance of the opening of this judicial process, the case simultaneously raises several legal, procedural and legislative challenges that require special attention in order to preserve the integrity of the proceedings and strengthen its legal and human rights legitimacy.
At the forefront of these challenges is the legal characterization of the crimes mentioned in the indictment. The characterization of certain acts as “war crimes” raises important legal questions, insofar as war crimes, under international humanitarian law, presuppose the existence of an armed conflict, international or not, as an essential constituent element. However, the facts at issue in this case date back to the beginning of 2011 — that is, to a period prior to the international classification of the Syrian situation as an armed conflict — which raises legitimate questions about the legal solidity of that classification. Conversely, the characterization of the alleged acts as crimes against humanity seems more consistent with the widespread and systematic nature of the violations committed against civilians during this period.
Another legal issue was the legal basis for characterizing crimes against humanity, including the reference to Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This article addresses peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) and the invalidity of treaties that contravene these norms; however, it does not, by itself, constitute a direct criminal basis for defining crimes against humanity. From a legal point of view, this calls for a more explicit recourse to customary international law and to the principles enshrined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which remains the most developed international legal framework for international crimes.
Another major legal challenge is the absence of certain offenses in the indictment despite their apparent connection to the alleged facts, including the crime of enforced disappearance and the crime of persecution as a crime against humanity. Enforced disappearance is one of the most serious violations prohibited by peremptory norms of international law, regardless of the fact that Syria is not a party to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Similarly, persecution involves the serious deprivation of fundamental rights against individuals or groups on political or discriminatory grounds, which could apply to certain aspects of the facts alleged in this case.
Another legislative challenge is that Syrian legislation still lacks explicit and comprehensive provisions criminalizing war crimes and crimes against humanity in accordance with recognized definitions of international criminal law. This raises a legal debate about the compatibility of the procedure with the principle of legality, namely “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege” (“no crime or punishment without law”). It therefore appears necessary to modernize Syrian legislation and include explicit provisions that criminalize these international crimes.
In the same context, the question of whether statutory limitations apply to serious international crimes is another fundamental legal issue raised by this case. International law recognizes that war crimes and crimes against humanity are not time-barred because of their gravity and their connection to the fundamental interests of humanity as a whole. However, selective application of this principle by Syrian courts, in some cases and not in others, could, in the future, raise concerns about inconsistency, politicization or inequality before the law. This underscores the importance of adopting a clear and uniform judicial and legislative policy on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to serious international crimes.
Additional challenges also arise in connection with trials in absentia. Although proceedings against fugitives are permitted under Syrian law in certain circumstances, such proceedings require strong safeguards for the right to a defense, the right to a new trial upon appearance, and the ability of defense teams to access and challenge evidence effectively.
Among the positive aspects that should also be highlighted is that this trial has revived public debate in Syria on judicial accountability, transitional justice, the independence of the judiciary, and victims’ rights, after years when these notions had largely disappeared from public and legal debate. Moreover, the emergence of an open legal debate regarding the qualification of crimes and international fair-trial standards is itself an important development in Syrian legal culture, despite the considerable challenges that remain.
In light of the above, several key recommendations emerge. In particular, there is a need for the Syrian Ministry of Justice to modernize national legislation in line with international criminal law standards and to introduce explicit provisions criminalizing crimes against humanity, war crimes, and enforced disappearances, in addition to adopting a uniform judicial policy on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to serious international crimes.
It is also recommended that the presidency of the Fourth Criminal Court strengthen fair trial guarantees, respect the presumption of innocence, protect judicial independence from political or media influence, and ensure that defense teams can fully and effectively exercise their rights.
At the legislative level, the future Syrian Parliament is called upon to play a central role in revising the legal framework relating to transitional justice and the independence of the judiciary, by working towards Syria’s accession to the relevant international conventions — in particular the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance — as well as the reform of laws designed to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and to prevent any political or security interference in judicial affairs.
Ultimately, despite the legal and human rights challenges surrounding this process, this trial represents an important first step in a long and complex process to rebuild the notions of justice and the rule of law in Syria. The success of this process will ultimately depend on the ability of Syrian judicial institutions to establish an independent and professional judicial model that respects international fair-trial standards, generates genuine public confidence in justice, and ensures justice for victims and respect for the rights of the accused, including fair-trial guarantees