The financial agreements concluded in Syria must not protect the perpetrators of war crimes or crimes against humanity, said Radif Mustafa, member of the National Transitional Justice Authority, in an intervention published on 11 November. The person responsible distinguished the return of assets diverted from criminal liability for the most serious violations.
A limit announced by the authorities
Director of the Department of Accountability, Mustafa states that the arrangements concern economic offences. He asserts that persons who have already entered into such agreements subsequently appeared before the Fourth Criminal Chamber as a result of new charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He does not present these appearances as convictions.
He also indicated that the transitional justice bill was in its final phase of discussion with the relevant ministries. It announces its transmission to the People’s Council for adoption within a maximum of one month. This declaration is a political timetable announced, not the enactment of a law.
Returning money is not enough
In a report published on 10 November, the Syrian Human Rights Network details the guarantees it considers essential for these negotiations. The organisation requires prior legislation, full disclosure of facts and property, and independent control. It calls for the annulment of an agreement when decisive information has been concealed.
In particular, the report distinguishes direct financing of criminal acts from indirect profit from a monopoly. These categories may overlap, so they do not exempt each person from examining his or her conduct. The organisation calls for proportionate sanctions and excludes the most serious international violations from agreements to escape criminal responsibility.
Victims at the heart of the guarantees requested
The Network proposes that aggrieved persons be informed of the negotiations, challenge their conditions and appeal. The assets recovered should, in his view, feed into an independent reparation fund, rather than be treated as a mere revenue from the State.
These recommendations are not rules already adopted. The report specifically calls for safeguards to be defined before new agreements are concluded.
Comments