When Atif Najib was led into a Damascus courtroom on Sunday, he cut an isolated figure. Sat behind bars in striped, prison-issue clothes, Mr Najib was a long way from his previous life as a powerful figure in the regime of former Syrian president Bashar Al Assad, his cousin.
Mr Najib’s trial – part of several prosecutions of regime officials being brought by Syria’s transitional authorities – carries symbolic weight. In 2011, the former army brigadier general was the head of political security in the south-western city of Deraa. It was here that the arrest and torture of four teenagers for scrawling anti-government graffiti lit the spark of a nationwide uprising against Assad rule and the civil war that followed.
That conflict’s brutality left Syrian society with deep scars and a quest for justice. The country’s judiciary is attempting to meet this demand by establishing some kind of legal accountability for the many abuses committed by those who were part of the former regime. It is a day many in Syria thought they would never see, but as significant at these trials are, the country’s justice system will face as much scrutiny as the defendants.
There is the painstaking work of ensuring that complex war-crimes trials are transparent, legally sound and, above all, fair. This is easier said than done. Reliable evidence and documentation may be sparse, and it is unclear yet if witnesses will feel safe enough to give their testimony.
In addition, Syria’s judicial system – like many of the country’s institutions – has been transformed since forces led by Ahmad Al Shara, now Syria’s President, swept to power in December 2024. It is in the process of being rebuilt and will have to prove its impendence and capacity. Will judges be able to resist political pressure, and will other countries with former regime figures in custody co-operate in extraditing them to Syria for trial?
These prosecutions are as much about Syria’s future as they are about its past. Should the legal system fall short of prosecuting suspects in a competent and transparent way – or allow the process to be bogged down in years of legal wrangling – mounting public frustration could become another faultline in Syria’s turbulent society and would fail in delivering at least partial justice.
The country has already experienced the violence and lawlessness of revenge killings and vigilante retribution. Proving that there is a way to achieve justice - even if just for a limited number of crimes committed - without bloodshed is vital for delivering the new start Syria’s people have already sacrificed so much for.
