The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) participated in “The Hague Justice Dialogues 2026,” an international gathering on justice, human dignity, and the protection of victims of war, which was organized by the International Criminal Law Foundation (Stichting Internationaal Strafrecht, S.I.S.) at the Hilton The Hague, the Netherlands, on October 14 and 15, 2026. The gathering brought together legal experts, human rights advocates, diplomatic representatives, journalists, and voices from civil society.
On Thursday, October 15, Fadel Abdulghany, the Executive Director of SNHR, spoke at a session titled “When War Tests Justice,” which was moderated by Mr. Parwiz Kawa. The session addressed the challenges of justice and accountability in armed conflicts, and how international law can respond at a time where civilians are subjected to serious violations, institutions are under pressure, and victims struggle to obtain recognition and justice.
Abdulghany stated that the human rights report and the criminal investigation perform two different functions: the first establishes what happened, whereas a prosecution must go further and prove what one particular person did, what he knew or intended, and which form of responsibility recognized by the applicable law attaches to him. He said: “What is most often missing is the evidence that connects a documented crime to a particular suspect, together with an authority that has the legal power to obtain that evidence and test it.”
Abdulghany noted that, after documentation, investigators still need linkage evidence, such as written orders, detention registers, and transfer lists; records that can be authenticated, with a reliable account of their provenance and chain of custody; witnesses who are available to a court and who have consented to testify; and a rigorous search for exculpatory evidence. He added that civil society is able to gather a good deal of this material; however, it does not have the power to compel, as it cannot seize archives, summon witnesses, or question suspects. Hence, the gap is institutional as much as it is evidentiary. He also highlighted two difficulties specific to Syria: the Syrian Penal Code does not define crimes against humanity or war crimes, and the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM), under its own terms, cannot assist in a case in which the death penalty would apply.
He called for building specialized and independent investigative and prosecutorial capacity in Syria, with lawful access to the archives of the security services and a witness-protection framework set out in law, whose first task should be an audit of the existing files, and for the international partners to fund and train this capacity.
As for what would make accountability in the transitional period of Syria credible to the victims of violations committed by different parties, Abdulghany said: “Accountability becomes credible to all victims when the same legal standard applies whoever the perpetrator is, including when he serves the authorities of today, and when the State recognises a victim by what was done to them, whoever did it.”
He stressed that this does not mean symmetry, noting that the Assad regime and its allies were responsible for the great majority of the civilian deaths documented by SNHR, and that equal standards mean that no suspect is shielded by his political affiliation, military position, or community affiliation. He pointed to asymmetries in the current framework, including Decree No. 20 of May 2025, which confines the mandate of the National Commission for Transitional Justice to the grave violations caused by the former regime (a limitation that applies to the Commission, not to the ordinary courts), and Article 49 of the Constitutional Declaration, which, as SNHR reads it, lifts the bar on retroactive prosecution of international crimes with respect to the former regime, while maintaining it with respect to others. He called on the legislature to remove these asymmetries by law, rather than leave inclusion to interpretation or political discretion.
Abdulghany identified four commitments for achieving equal treatment in practice: that decisions to investigate and to charge be free of political direction; that the criteria for case selection be published, so that deferral does not become permanent exclusion; that a fair trial be guaranteed for every accused; and that victims from all communities be able to participate safely and be protected against reprisals. He added that prosecution is only one of the available remedies, stressing that the search for the missing, truth-seeking, and reparations should not depend on the identity of the perpetrator.
