The Paris appeals court is expected to make a crucial decision on Wednesday regarding an arrest warrant for Syrian President Bashar Assad, issued by France last year. The warrant accuses Assad of complicity in war crimes during the ongoing Syrian civil war.
French judicial authorities issued international arrest warrants in November 2022 for Assad, his brother Maher Assad (commander of the 4th Armored Division), and two Syrian generals, Ghassan Abbas and Bassam al-Hassan. These warrants stem from accusations of involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the 2013 chemical attack on Damascus suburbs then held by opposition forces. Victims of the attack welcomed the French decision to issue arrest warrants, viewing it as a recognition of the horrors of the Syrian conflict.
However, in a surprising turn, French anti-terrorism prosecutors requested the Paris appeals court to overturn the arrest warrant for President Assad in May. They argued that Assad enjoys absolute immunity as a serving head of state. Notably, the prosecutors did not challenge the warrants for Assad’s brother and the two generals during a closed hearing on May 15th.
The issuance of international arrest warrants for a sitting head of state is highly unusual. The Paris court’s initial decision to issue a warrant against the Syrian president represented a strong condemnation of Assad’s leadership, especially at a time when some nations were seeking to re-engage diplomatically with him.
The chemical attack on Douma and Eastern Ghouta in August 2013 resulted in over 1,000 deaths and thousands of injuries. A special unit of the Paris Judicial Court is investigating the attacks under universal jurisdiction. The investigation, launched in 2021, stemmed from a criminal complaint filed by survivors and the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression.
The international community widely attributed the sarin gas attack in the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta to Assad’s government. However, the Syrian government and its allies denied responsibility, claiming the attack was carried out by opposition forces seeking foreign military intervention.
The United States, under then-President Barack Obama, threatened military retaliation in response to the attack, declaring the use of chemical weapons by Assad a “red line.” Nevertheless, public and congressional hesitation towards another war in the wake of the prolonged conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq led to a shift in strategy. Washington ultimately negotiated a deal with Moscow for Syria to relinquish its chemical weapons stockpile.
While Syria claims to have eliminated its chemical arsenal under the 2013 agreement, watchdog groups have continued to report alleged chemical attacks by Syrian government forces.
Syria is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which limits the court’s jurisdiction. However, human rights lawyers have called for an investigation into crimes committed during the Syrian civil war, arguing that the ICC could assert jurisdiction over Syrian civilians who have been forced into Jordan, a member state. To date, the ICC has not initiated an investigation.
Separately, a Paris court sentenced three high-ranking Syrian officials in absentia to life imprisonment for complicity in war crimes. This landmark case against Assad’s government represents the first of its kind in Europe.
The Paris court’s decision on Wednesday regarding the arrest warrant for Assad will have significant implications for the Syrian conflict and international efforts to hold perpetrators of war crimes accountable. It will also offer insights into the evolving international legal landscape surrounding the prosecution of heads of state.
