The Truth and Justice Charter has been closely following developments surrounding the establishment of the National Commission for Transitional Justice in Syria. At its inception, this step inspired hope among millions of Syrians for the restoration of the rule of law, the reform of state institutions, the advancement of the national legal framework, the clarification of the fate of the missing—inside and outside Syria—and the pursuit of accountability for perpetrators of violations, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, as well as the prevention of recurrence and the dismantling of impunity.
That initial sense of hope, however, has steadily eroded over recent months. A series of concerning trends, structural challenges, and emerging practices have raised serious doubts about the Commission’s ability to deliver on its mandate within the current political and institutional context. We note with particular concern that the Commission appears to be operating in an environment that does not meaningfully support the independence or initiative required to pursue strategic, inclusive, and non-discriminatory transitional justice processes.
Direct interventions by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice, alongside structural overlaps with both institutions, have placed undue constraints on the Commission’s work. These dynamics have limited its capacity to develop an independent and forward-looking vision for transitional justice and have influenced the prioritization of its pathways, narrowing what should be a comprehensive and inclusive approach to justice in Syria.
Recent efforts to fast-track trials of individuals accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Damascus further underscore these concerns. Such steps risk sidelining the National Commission and initiating judicial processes in the absence of an adequate legal framework, while also bypassing the necessary engagement of relevant social and professional actors. The implications extend beyond short-term political signaling or symbolic responses to victims’ legitimate demands. More fundamentally, this approach risks undermining the integrity of transitional justice itself and fragmenting its role in supporting a meaningful transition toward a more just, stable, and rights-based order.
At the same time, emerging forms of settlements with perpetrators or those complicit in serious violations raise concerns that political expediency may come at the expense of comprehensive justice. Continued reliance on existing legal and institutional frameworks—without undertaking meaningful and structural judicial reform—further weakens the prospects of building a credible transitional justice process capable of addressing gross human rights violations. It also risks reproducing, rather than dismantling, the underlying drivers of conflict.
We are also concerned by the absence of clearly defined standards governing the Commission’s work, including guarantees of administrative and financial independence, as well as the lack of clarity around oversight, accountability, evaluation, and feedback mechanisms. Decision-making and appointment procedures remain opaque, despite ongoing recruitment efforts. If left unaddressed, these shortcomings risk turning the Commission into a site of political and bureaucratic contestation, rather than an independent national body capable of advancing Syrians’ rights to truth, justice, the rule of law, and guarantees of non-recurrence.
Equally troubling is the limited and insufficiently representative participation of victims in shaping the process. Meaningful engagement of victims—including in the development of visions, priorities, and implementation mechanisms—remains constrained and does not reflect the diversity of victims across different categories of violations and parties to the conflict. This raises the risk of producing selective or exclusionary justice outcomes.
These concerns are compounded by broader economic and political trajectories that do not appear conducive to the implementation of comprehensive transitional justice programs. There is a growing tendency to frame transitional justice in narrowly technocratic, legal, and procedural terms, detached from its broader social and economic dimensions. Such an approach risks limiting public engagement, weakening societal ownership, and undermining principles of inclusivity and non-discrimination in addressing victims’ rights and entitlements.
Accordingly, we emphasize the following:
- The development of a comprehensive, independent, and non-discriminatory national strategy for transitional justice, grounded in the right to truth and the right to justice.
- The full institutional independence of the National Commission for Transitional Justice, including administrative and financial autonomy, and the elimination of any structural or operational interference by governmental or political actors.
- The adoption and public disclosure of clear internal regulations governing the Commission’s work, including transparent procedures for decision-making, appointments, oversight, accountability, evaluation, and the assessment of its effective independence.
- The meaningful, inclusive, and non-discriminatory participation of all victim groups, regardless of the identity of the perpetrating party.
- The consistent application of principles of inclusivity and non-discrimination in victim redress and accountability processes.
- The initiation of genuine and comprehensive judicial reform to ensure accountability and prevent impunity.
- The integration of social and economic dimensions into transitional justice processes.
- The effective and meaningful participation of women at all levels.
- The rejection of any settlements that substitute for accountability or contribute to impunity.
1 May 2026
Truth and Justice Charter Group