“I could not sleep; I could not accept the long decision to form the transitional justice committee. The presidential decision is disappointing because it limits justice to the crimes of the regime. The decision is telling me to discriminate between my brother who disappeared at the hands of the regime and my brother who disappeared at the hands of ISIS.” – A post written by Yasmine Mashaan, Syrian activist and a founding member of the Caesar Families Association.
In May 2025, Syria’s transitional President Ahmad al-Sharaa announced the long-awaited presidential decree to form a National Transitional Justice Authority. This came as a response to Syria’s vast legacy of human rights abuses, but for many Syrians like Yasmine Mashaan, this decision felt more like another betrayal than a step toward justice.
The decree initiates a discriminatory process, with its scope limited to investigating crimes committed solely by the Assad regime. It excludes violations by other actors despite their documented responsibility for grave abuses. By institutionalizing such a narrow scope, the decree effectively enshrines a selective justice, differentiating between victims, which will eventually reinforce social divisions and obstruct prospects for sustainable peace and a genuine national reconciliation.
A credible and inclusive transitional justice process in Syria is not only possible, but necessary. Justice and peace actors must pressure the Syrian government to widen the mandate of the National Transitional Justice Authority to include crimes committed by all parties in the Syrian conflict.
Institutionalizing selective justice
According to Presidential Decree No. 20, the National Transitional Justice Authority aims to “uncover the truth about the grave violations caused by the former regime, hold those responsible accountable in coordination with the relevant authorities, compensate the victims, and consolidate the principles of non-repetition and national reconciliation.”
Critically, the decree limits in its text the scope of investigation to Assad regime crimes only and excludes victims of non-regime actors, and was criticized by various victims’ groups, including the Truth and Justice Charter which includes most of the groups in Syria.
Critically, the decree limits in its text the scope of investigation to Assad regime crimes only and excludes victims of non-regime actors
In parallel, the presidency issued Decree No. 19 to form the National Authority for Missing Persons, which is “tasked with investigating and uncovering the fate of missing and forcibly disappeared persons, documenting cases, establishing a national database, and providing legal and humanitarian support to their families.” This decree is broad in its scope and is not limited to victims of the regime. This suggests that the vision of the transitional authorities is to confine accountability to crimes committed by regime actors, while keeping the process of determining the fate of the disappeared inclusive of all victims. This approach may reflect the political interests of Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), which likely aims to avoid future accountability for crimes committed by itself or its allies.
Furthermore, the establishment of these authorities by presidential decree, in the absence of a functioning parliament, limited the opportunity for a broader debate and public representation. Had a parliament been in place, creating these bodies through a legislative process would have allowed for wider discussion of their mandate and scope, potentially resulting in a more inclusive and transparent process. This, in turn, could have enhanced their credibility and ensured greater local buy-in.
The largest but not the only perpetrator
Syria’s conflict has been marked by widespread and systematic violations committed by multiple actors. While the Assad regime is responsible for the largest share of crimes—including chemical attacks, mass torture, and enforced disappearances—it was not the sole perpetrator. Other actors, such as ISIS, HTS, and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), also committed serious crimes, which included mass executions, targeted persecution, arbitrary detentions, and forced displacement, among other things. Selectively recognizing only one set of crimes erases the experiences of entire segments of the Syrian population. For instance, Kurdish, Sunni, and Druze families targeted by ISIS, or Arab families in Raqqa affected by SDF abuses, are excluded from justice mechanisms under this decree
The mother of Jamal Omar, a revolutionary activist who disappeared in Aleppo at the hands of ISIS said to TIMEP: “I was shocked to learn that the decree includes only victims of the regime. My son […] was taken by ISIS. By excluding crimes committed by ISIS, it feels as if they are defending ISIS. We will not be silent. We will not accept that. We want a state-led justice process, not individual revenge killings.”
Transitional justice should not be selective
At its heart, transitional justice is meant to help societies rebuild after conflict by acknowledging the truth, treating all victims with fairness and dignity, and taking a firm stance against violations no matter who committed them. When justice is applied selectively, it sends a dangerous message that some victims matter more than others, and that some perpetrators are beyond accountability.
Differentiating between victims could deepen divisions and prevent the honest national reflection needed to heal and move forward. One of the key goals of transitional justice is to make sure that such crimes do not happen again. That means reforming institutions and ensuring that those responsible for abuse, regardless of who the perpetrators were, are removed from positions of power. This risk of recurrence in Syria is not a theoretical one, but a reality especially after the coastal massacres that led to the killing of more than 2,000 people. Some perpetrators were not only never held accountable, but were even promoted within the military ranks of the current authorities.
When justice is applied selectively, it sends a dangerous message that some victims matter more than others, and that some perpetrators are beyond accountability
The Syrian state established a fact-finding mission to investigate the crimes committed along the coast in March which presented its main findings during a press conference on July 22. The report acknowledged that members of the new Syrian Armed Forces were involved in the violence, but concluded that the violations were not systematic. This contradicts an earlier Reuters report, which indicated a more organized and widespread pattern of abuse. Despite the commission’s findings, the state has yet to take concrete steps to hold the perpetrators accountable. Violations were repeated during the most recent military campaign in Suwayda in July, with reports about unlawful killings and abuses.
These continuous violations show that this selective justice path fails to establish non-recurrence, a key pillar of transitional justice. By ignoring crimes committed by actors who still hold influence in different parts of Syria, the process tacitly tolerates continued impunity.
Principled transitional justice
One likely reason the authorities chose this selective approach to transitional justice could be their concern that a broader process could expose them and their allies to accountability. However, transitional justice does not need to hold every perpetrator accountable to be effective, but must instead be built on clear and principled foundations. Justice after conflict is rarely exhaustive—not every crime is prosecuted, and not every perpetrator is held accountable. In order for the process to be legitimate and meaningful, it must reflect a national moral stance against all grave violations, regardless of the identity of the perpetrator or the victim.
Transparency, independent oversight, and the removal of perpetrators from official roles are essential to rebuild public trust and prevent recurrence
Transitional justice often includes political and moral compromises for the sake of stability and peace. However, a transitional justice process that turns a blind eye to the violations committed by some perpetrators sends a dangerous signal: that justice is selective, and that some groups are above the law. Such an approach undermines the possibility of rebuilding trust between communities and blocks the emergence of a democratic political culture rooted in equal rights and accountability. Only a principled process, one that reflects a national position against all crimes and affirms a collective commitment to non-recurrence, can offer Syrians a path out of violence and into a more just future.
To move from selective justice toward a genuine transitional process, both Syrian authorities and international actors must act. The National Transitional Justice Authority’s mandate should cover crimes by all parties, not only the regime, and justice bodies must be established through parliamentary legislation to ensure legal legitimacy. Transparency, independent oversight, and the removal of perpetrators from official roles are essential to rebuild public trust and prevent recurrence. Importantly, victims and civil society should be at the heart of any justice process—from documentation and truth-telling to reparations and reform.
For Syrians like Yasmine Mashaan, justice is not about choosing sides, it is about recognizing the full scope of suffering and ensuring it never happens again. An inclusive, transparent, and principled justice process is not an obstacle to peace; it is its foundation. If Syria is to move forward, it must begin by telling the whole truth.
Lina Ghoutouk is a Nonresident Fellow at TIMEP focusing on transitional justice in Syria. She is a Syrian researcher and human rights specialist with over a decade of experience in the humanitarian and research sectors.