Vagueness of "Civil Peace" Committee raises questions about seriousness of holding Assad regime figures accountable

In a striking statement, Hassan Soufan, a member of the Civil Peace Committee in Syria, revealed an ambiguous approach to dealing with the cases of senior officials of the former Assad regime, most notably former Interior Minister Mohammed al-Shaar and former head of the Political Security Branch in Daraa, Atef Najib, whose trials the Syrian public is eagerly awaiting.

In response to a question about the fate of these two individuals, who have been linked to serious crimes and violations over the years, Soufan said, "There are many figures being dealt with with great care due to the sensitivity and seriousness of the information they possess and the paths they were pursuing. In the coming days, some of the measures taken will be disclosed to the public."

This response, which came during a press conference held by the committee on Tuesday, did not provide conclusive answers. Rather, it increased the level of anxiety and doubt about the future of transitional justice in post-Assad Syria.

Soufan's response regarding the "high-precision handling" of figures like Al-Shaar and Naguib raises fundamental criticism for several reasons:

First, the response is extremely vague and general, using vague terms such as "sensitive and dangerous information" without providing any timeframe or clear accountability mechanism. This vagueness opens the door to speculation that this "sensitive information" could be used as a bargaining chip in behind-the-scenes political settlements, or as a pretext for indefinitely postponing trials, which could ultimately lead to impunity for perpetrators.

Second, there is a clear contradiction between the principle of open trials, which is the foundation of justice, and the idea of ​​secretly handling those accused of crimes against humanity. Justice is not limited to issuing judgments; it is a comprehensive process that includes revealing the truth to the public and ensuring victims' right to know what happened. This contradicts "precision," which in this case could imply secrecy.

Third, the priority should be achieving justice for victims, not protecting information held by the executioners. While this information may be useful in uncovering other criminal networks, it should not become a reason to obstruct the primary judicial process. This information can be obtained through official and legal investigations without requiring special treatment that violates the principle of equality before the law.

Zaman Al Wasl