A Detailed Account of Five months, the Syrian and Russian Regimes are Responsible for 71% of all Violations

The statistics in this report, which is published by SNHR, are based on the Network’s monthly reports. These reports draw upon a daily and cumulative documentation of daily incidents throughout the period of time between the commencement of the Cessation of Hostilities statement on 27 February 2016 and 27 July 2016 where the report records that 71% of all the violations in the five-month period since the commencement of the Cessation of Hostilities statement were perpetrated by the Russian and Syrian regimes.
The report notes that the Russian authorities announced that Russian forces would withdraw from Syria.

The withdrawal, however, was only words on paper as Russian forces are still bombing the various Syrian governorates using a wide range of weapons including internationally-prohibited weapons such as cluster munition. As it is well known, Russian forces are fighting side by side with the Syrian regime and, therefore, it is a main party in the conflict and have been involved in tens of war crimes. At the same time, the Russian regime was a party to the statement of Cessation of Hostilities and a party in the political process as well which is one of the most major paradoxes in the Syrian tragedy according to the report.
The report anticipates, based on the data it includes, that the American-Russian agreement to coordinate against Al Nussra Front, Al Qaeda branch in Syria, and ISIS will fail as well because the agreement repeats the same mistakes that were made in the Cessation of Hostilities statement. Russian forces will keep targeting civilians and armed opposition factions and claims that they were Al Nussra Front. Nonetheless, the terrorist sectarian militias that are loyal to the Syrian regime aren’t targeted amid an utter lack of any monitoring or accountability mechanisms.

Fadel Abdul Ghani, chairman of SNHR, adds:
“The Syrian people can’t picture that there is an ongoing political process and at the same times barrel bombs are being dropped over them in addition to the arrest, siege, and displacement. There has to be a complete ceasefire and only then the political process will have solid grounds. We hope that this happens before the beginning of the upcoming elections in the US. Otherwise, there will be long months of killing and displacement awaiting the lone Syrian people”
The report documents the killing of 5188 civilians including 1016 children and 694 women during the period of time covered in the report. Government forces killed 3055 civilians including 483 children and 359 women while Russian forces killed 417 civilians including 113 children and 63 women. Additionally, 552 civilians were killed by ISIS including 98 children and 78 women whereas Al Nussra Front killed 17 civilians including two children and one woman. Also, the number of victims killed at the hands of the international coalition forces is 305 civilians including 130 children and 53 women whereas Self-management forces killed 184 civilians including 17 children and eight women. Furthermore, 392 civilians including 102 children and 92 women were killed by the various armed opposition factions.

Moreover, the report records that 3631 individuals were arrested including 113 children and 135 women. Government forces arrested 2517 individuals including 83 children and 114 women while ISIS arrested 585 individuals including four children and five women. Also, Al Nussra Front arrested 97 individuals including one child whereas Self-management forces arrested 168 individuals including 19 children and 12 women. Also, 264 individuals including four women and six children were arrested by armed opposition factions.
According to the report, 152 massacres were perpetrated in the period of time covered in this report where government forces perpetrated 102 massacres, Russian forces perpetrated 19 massacres, ISIS perpetrated 12 massacres, the international coalition forces perpetrated seven massacres, and six massacres were perpetrated by armed opposition factions in addition to six massacre that were perpetrated by unidentified groups.
The report highlights the attacks against vital civil facilities which amounted to 440 incidents of attacks including 275 by government forces and 100 by Russian forces. Additionally, 25 attacks against vital civil facilities were carried out by armed opposition factions, 19 by ISIS, six by international coalition forces, and one by Self-management forces in addition to 14 incidents of attacks that were carried out by unidentified groups.

The report calls on the government of Russia and the USA to investigate the incidents included, to deal with violations seriously, and to map out the locations of Al Nussra Front and ISIS rather than targeting all areas and neighborhoods under the pretext of combating terrorism.
Furthermore, the report demands that double-standard policies must end as the terrorist groups that are fighting side by side with the Syrian regime, which are mostly of a Shiite and sectarian nature, must be fought in addition to the extremist Islamic groups.
The report emphasizes that the Russian government must immediately withdraw from Syria and not side with the Syrian regime.
Finally, the report calls on for the Syrian case to be referred to the International Criminal Court and for all involved to be held accountable, Also, peace and security must be instilled in Syria and the norm of “Responsibility to Protect” must be implemented in order to save the lives, history, and arts of the Syrian people from being destroyed, stolen, or ruined.

(The full report can be viewed here.)

Although the Syria peace talks have stalled in recent months, closed-door discussions continue between the United States and Russia to resolve the current impasse. As these discussions go on, it has become increasingly clear that criminal justice is not a priority for either the UN Special Envoy or the international brokers. Even though amnesties have not been discussed publicly, there is a high likelihood that they will be included if a final deal is ever reached. In fact, as the Syria Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC) wrote last year, amnesties are a common component of peace agreements, taking many different forms, ranging from conditional amnesties (as in South Africa) to wholesale blanket amnesties (as in Lebanon). Broad, unconditional amnesties, however, have increasingly been rejected by both international and national courts, and the International Committee of the Red Cross has gone so far to assert that the prohibition on blanket amnesties for those most responsible for gross violations of human rights constitutes customary international law and must be adhered to by all states.

In reality, however, these court decisions and expert opinions have not seemed to have much influence on peace negotiations, particularly those in the Middle East. Former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh and his aides, for example, received blanket amnesties in a deal mediated by the Gulf Cooperation Council and supported by the international community. Similarly in Syria, it seems as though President Bashar al-Assad will receive some sort of amnesty based on how the negotiations have prioritized peace over justice to date. So what does international practice say about the peace vs. justice dichotomy and what can Syrians who seek justice for their grievances expect from a future peace agreement negotiated under the current framework?

Traditionally, justice has been seen as an impediment to peace, but there is a growing recognition that peace agreements that do not address grievances often lead to renewed conflict. Studies have shown that countries which utilize a combination of amnesties and prosecutions are more likely to have lasting peace than countries which only utilize one mechanism. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is the foundation of the modern notion that justice for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide must not be sacrificed for any reason, and the Inter-American Court as well as national courts in Argentina and, most recently, El Salvador, have struck down amnesty laws that shielded those most responsible for war crimes from accountability.

In reality, there must be a balance of peace and justice. The question is how to leverage amnesties to get important concessions while still ensuring that those most responsible are tried. In prolonged and massive conflicts like Syria, it is quite difficult to hold all perpetrators accountable due to the scale of violations. According to Daniel Serwer, SJAC’s newest Board member and Director of the Conflict Management Program at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, “It is impossible to prosecute everyone in a situation as fraught and violent as Syria. It should be up to Syrians to decide whom they want to prosecute, based on the evidence available, the capacity of whatever judicial system is used and the nature administrative measures like vetting and lustration that are less taxing on the judiciary, which is bound to be weakened after a ferocious war.” The trick is to create the conditions for peace within the political agreement while also ensuring society and victims feel as though their grievances have been acknowledged and will be addressed.

Even if justice mechanisms are included in a final peace agreement, the timeline will likely disappoint most Syrians. According to Serwer, “Justice is always slower than people like. Only rough justice can be done quickly, but that can lead to revenge, autocracy, and renewal of conflict.” Examples from other post-conflict or post-authoritarian countries demonstrate that it can often take years, if not decades, for perpetrators to see the inside of a courtroom. Blanket amnesties can further delay the already lengthy justice process. It takes time for national courts in post-conflict countries to rebuild and gain sufficient capacity, legitimacy, and independence to review and overturn blanket amnesty laws. In Chile, the 1978 amnesty law passed by the military regime of Augusto Pinochet was in place for 20 years before the Supreme Court struck it down, opening the opportunity for prosecutions. Since then, 1,000 cases have been opened, and by 2014, 75 of Pinochet’s secret police were sentenced to prison time. Similar examples can be found in Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Uruguay, and Peru. Outside of Latin America, Uganda’s Supreme Court recently ruled on its 2000 amnesty law, which granted immunity to fighters and commanders of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). The court found that the law exempted grave international crimes, allowing LRA commander Thomas Kwoyelo to be prosecuted for violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. While these instances represent a promising trend, their global impact has so far been limited and will likely not influence the outcome of the Syrian conflict.

Amnesties, specifically conditional amnesties, will never be completely dispensable, particularly in large-scale conflicts with numerous perpetrators. Stability requires a peace agreement that the parties to the conflict consent to sign and implement. In turn, transitional justice requires a measure of stability to be possible. Thus, transitional justice and peace are really two sides of the same coin. Transitional justice relies on peace, and long-term peace relies on the type of reconciliation that only a holistic transitional justice process can provide. For Syria, it will be important for the UN and international mediators to promote a balance of justice and amnesties within a final peace agreement. It will require sacrifices and tough choices, but ignoring justice completely, as in Yemen, is not a feasible option.

For more information or to provide feedback, please contact SJAC at info@syriaaccountability.org.

(This article was originally featured on the Syria Justice & Accountability Centre’s website and can be found here.)