After a death sentence was passed in absentia against ousted Syrian president Bashar al-Assad this week, questions have arisen over the ruling's potential impact on the transitional justice process and efforts to his extradite the former dictator from Russia.
On Tuesday, Damascus’ Fourth Criminal Court handed down the verdict in absentia against Assad, convicting him of premeditated murder, torture and crimes against humanity committed during the Syrian Civil War, in a landmark case one and a half years after his ouster. The deposed Syrian leader was sentenced alongside his brother Maher, former defence minister Fahd Jassem al-Freij, and his cousin, Atef Najib, who was tried in person.
Presiding Judge Fakhr al-Din al-Oryan said that Assad’s role in these crimes was that of the "ultimate decision-maker", stressing that he had mobilised state apparatuses to carry them out.
Speaking to The New Arab, legal expert and human rights advocate Samer Daie said that the ruling provides the Syrian state with "official legal grounds to take further action, whether by issuing or activating arrest warrants, submitting extradition requests, or contacting relevant international judicial cooperation bodies".
Daie added: "The verdict against Bashar al-Assad was issued in absentia, unlike Atef Najib, who was tried in person. This will have significant implications if Assad is later brought before the Syrian judiciary, particularly regarding the rights of the defence and the possibility of a retrial according to applicable procedural rules."
Moscow granted Bashar al-Assad asylum on humanitarian grounds after his arrival in December 2024, where he is living a secluded life away from political and media attention, according to reports.
Daie stressed that granting asylum "does not erase criminal responsibility, nor does it grant the individual absolute immunity from prosecution". He explained, however, the complications that may arise from this.
He said the primary effect of asylum is that it complicates extradition from a legal and political standpoint, because Russia will deal with any Syrian request according to its domestic law, the bilateral treaty, and the legal status it granted Assad, in addition to the political considerations related to the relationship between the two countries.
Regarding the existence of an extradition treaty between Syria and Russia, and its applicability in the case of Assad, Daie explained that this treaty was signed between the Syrian Arab Republic and the Russian Federation in St. Petersburg on 29 June and ratified by the Russian President in April 2023. He added: "There is essentially a bilateral framework upon which Syria can base its formal extradition request. However, the existence of the treaty does not automatically obligate Russia to extradite Assad upon receiving a request from Damascus."
Extradition is a judicial and sovereign process that is subject to specific conditions and procedures, and there may be legal grounds that allow the requested state to refuse.
The expert highlighted that the Syrian death penalty ruling differs from a custodial sentence, further complicating this process.
"This could complicate the extradition process, as the death penalty constitutes an issue distinct from the establishment of the crime itself in the context of international judicial cooperation."
He added: "In international practice, the state from which extradition is requested may require guarantees that the death penalty will not be carried out — or that it will be commuted — before agreeing to the extradition. Thus, while the death penalty verdict represents the most severe form of conviction under the national penal system, it may simultaneously create an additional obstacle to executing the extradition request abroad."
Daie said that Russia has not carried out the death penalty for many years; consequently, the issue of the penalty could arise during the assessment of any extradition request — alongside considerations regarding asylum, trial guarantees, and the fact that the verdict was issued in absentia.
"This does not mean extradition is impossible; rather, it means the drafting of the Syrian request will be crucial, and it may need to include guarantees regarding how the penalty would be handled should extradition take place," Daie said.
He also argued that the verdict against Assad transforms the issue of his presence in Russia from a purely political question into a legal one as well: "How will the state that granted him asylum respond when it receives a formal extradition request from another state — his country of origin — for an individual who has been convicted by its judicial system?"
The legal expert urged against overstating the verdict's immediate enforcement impact, stating that the ruling is "not a magic wand to bring Assad back from Moscow, but it fundamentally alters the legal nature of the case". He emphasised that the next phase involves more than simply sending a copy of the verdict to Moscow — it requires preparing a comprehensive extradition dossier that outlines the legal basis for jurisdiction, the nature of the crimes, the integrity of the proceedings, trial guarantees upon extradition, and the handling of the death penalty.
Assad’s sentencing was welcomed by Syrians in the country and in the diaspora, oppressed and exiled following years of a brutal civil war which saw numerous war crimes carried out, the jailing of dissidents, the devastation of the country’s infrastructure and economy, and isolation from the international arena.
The sentence, the first given to an Assad family member following decades of Ba’athist rule, has been interpreted as an important symbolic acknowledgment of what happened under the former president. It has, however, triggered some concerns among rights advocates who have cautioned that justice for Assad's crimes still requires a credible, fair judicial process.