1. Praising de-escalation zones without acknowledging the risk to civilians. 

Both the Homs and Ghouta de-escalation agreements include the evacuation of fighters. Although neither agreement mentions the evacuation of civilians, in the past, civilians have been forced to evacuate alongside fighters after a truce or local ceasefire agreement. Given the past trends and significant harm on local populations, De Mistura’s statement fails to acknowledge the risks and condemn any attempt to coerce civilians to leave their homes: “Following a series of agreements with armed groups, including with the active support of Egypt and the Russian Federation, we have seen a significant reduction of violence in parts of the Ghouta de-escalation zone, although not in all of it.” 

The COI Report, while discussing truces (local agreements between the government and fighting factions that differ from broader de-escalation zones), nonetheless acknowledged the forced displacements that have occurred: “In May, pro-Government officials and mediators on one side, and armed group members and/or local council representatives on the other, negotiated and implemented truces in Barza, Tishreen and Qabun, in eastern Damascus . . . All truces mentioned above have incorporated evacuation agreements, which has led to the forced displacement of thousands of civilians from those areas.” The COI report then calls upon all parties to end the forcible displacement of civilians.

It must also be noted that the Ghouta de-escalation agreement provided for the release of 1,500 detainees – yet few have in fact been released. While the reduction in violence due to the de-escalation agreement is praiseworthy, De Mistura should use his position to exert pressure to ensure that the parties abide by international humanitarian law and the terms of the agreement itself.