The Ministry of Justice issued a circular on January 5, 2025, urging Syrians to hand over any evidence they have or may come into possession of to public prosecutors for preservation. This is undoubtedly a sound position from the Syrian Ministry of Justice.
However, the new Circular No. 24, issued on December 15, 2025 (which emphasizes the importance of preserving evidence related to missing and forcibly disappeared persons), went so far as to consider the publication of documents through print or online investigative journalism a crime against state security. It even indicated that the penalty for these criminal acts would be severe under Article 247 of the Penal Code and Paragraph (c) of Article 33 of the Cybercrime Law. But before there can be a severe penalty, there must be a crime.
In principle, we agree with the Ministry of Justice's circular that using this information for an unlawful purpose constitutes a crime. However, the press obtaining and publishing this information constitutes a legitimate reason, and the press cannot be punished for it.
The question here is: Is this information inherently confidential, such that its publication constitutes a crime? Does it meet the conditions stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure to be an exception to the principle of transparency during judicial investigations, or subject to precautionary or urgent measures to preserve evidence?
Leaving aside this question, Circular No. 24 actually relied on the following articles of the Syrian Penal Code:
Articles 271 and 272 of the Penal Code stipulate that for a crime to be committed, there must be intent to enter a restricted area to steal or obtain documents that must remain confidential for the sake of national security.
However, these two articles do not apply to the press because the information must remain confidential for the sake of national security, not for the sake of the evidence required to achieve transitional justice, as Circular No. 24 claims. The established principle in criminalizing an act is that legal texts should not be interpreted broadly. Moreover, these two articles require bad faith and the specific criminal intent for the crime of disclosure. This means that the press is aware that this information jeopardizes national security and obtained it by entering or stealing from a restricted location.
Article 273 stipulates that anyone in possession of documents or information, such as those mentioned in Article 271, who discloses or divulges them without legitimate cause shall be punished with imprisonment. This description could apply if the person acted in bad faith, but the established legal principle, which constitutes a legal custom and a firmly rooted principle of law, is that the presumption is good faith on the part of the press, even investigative journalism.
This is because the role of the press is not merely to report the news; it also has a duty to sound the alarm about any suspected deviation, transgression, unusual phenomenon, or even to point out a major crime, with or without evidence, at all stages of the investigation. It is only the responsibility of the judicial authority to formally notify the journalist that publishing certain documents or information could affect the course of the investigation.
Only then is the journalist legally obligated to refrain from publishing the aforementioned information, solely for the benefit of the investigation. However, the documents pertaining to detainees are not related to a judicial investigation, but rather to determining the fate of millions of missing persons. They do not impede any future investigation into this matter because they do not reveal any perpetrator, accomplice, or instigator unknown to the Syrian people or the Ministry of Justice.
As for Chapter Four of the Cybercrime Law, enacted by the former regime to punish Syrians, none of its articles apply to obtaining and publishing information related to the fate of the missing.
Even the well-known charge of "undermining the prestige of the state" is inapplicable because Article 28 stipulates that the published news must be false.
The principle of press freedom constitutes an exception to the principle of not publishing confidential government and private information. This principle is enshrined in all European Union laws, including European legislation, particularly the 2016 European Directive, which explicitly states that press freedom is protected and that the press has the right to publish confidential information.
Dr. Omar Al-Youssef - Zaman Al-Wasl
Comments About This Article
Please fill the fields below.