The first session in the trial of former Brigadier Atif Najib was held on April 26, 2026, before the Fourth Criminal Court in Damascus, following his arrest on January 31, 2025. The indictment lists nine additional defendants, including Bashar and Maher al-Assad, Fahd al-Freij, Talal al-Asimi, Muhammad Ayoub, Loay al-Ali, Qusay Muhyub, and Wafiq Nasser.
Najib appeared in court with his defense counsel, while the remaining defendants were absent. In accordance with Article 322 of the Syrian Code of Criminal Procedure, the court granted the absent defendants the legally required notification period and adjourned what appeared to be a preparatory session until Sunday, May 10. That session is expected to include Najib’s interrogation, testimony from plaintiffs, witnesses for the prosecution and defense, and submissions from the Public Prosecution.
This opening session came amid clear public pressure to accelerate accountability efforts and initiate a genuine transitional justice process. It also followed months of Najib’s detention without trial—an issue that raises concerns regarding the legal guarantees and time limits governing pre-trial detention. For now, the judicial track appears to rely on ordinary courts and existing penal legislation, pending the establishment of specialized courts and the adoption of a dedicated transitional justice law to regulate accountability mechanisms in the next phase.
Najib’s trial is proceeding under the Syrian Code of Criminal Procedure through the standard litigation sequence: initiation of the public lawsuit by the Public Prosecution, referral to the investigating judge, and transfer to the competent Criminal Court. Sessions are open to local and international media and observers, with guarantees for defense rights and appeal—elements broadly aligned with international fair-trial standards.
The criminal acts under review are grounded primarily in the general Penal Code, which criminalizes offenses such as murder, kidnapping, rape, gang formation, and theft, as well as in Anti-Torture Law No. 16 of 2022. However, these laws suffer from structural deficiencies, most notably the absence of provisions explicitly criminalizing war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the former regime, including those attributed to Najib and other officials arrested by the Ministry of Interior.
This absence limits the ability to pursue comprehensive accountability under the doctrine of command responsibility and reduces the legal characterization of widespread, systematic violations to ordinary crimes—an approach that fails to reflect their gravity under international law.
Nonetheless, this gap can be partially addressed through the indictment itself. Article 12 of the Constitutional Declaration stipulates that international treaties ratified by Syria form part of the Declaration and thus part of the national legal system. This allows the broader context of the violations to be framed as war crimes and crimes against humanity, reinforcing their legal and historical nature while maintaining the direct criminal characterization under the Penal Code. This approach links the current trials to the emerging framework of transitional justice without exceeding existing legislative limits until a specialized legal system is enacted.
A second legal challenge concerns statutes of limitations and the principle of non-retroactivity. In principle, many of the violations before the court would fall under the statute of limitations in the general Penal Code. However, Article 18 of the Constitutional Declaration establishes an important exception: torture crimes are not subject to a statute of limitations. In many cases, torture resulted in death, and its effects remain ongoing. Enforced disappearance, by its nature, is a continuing crime until the victim’s fate is officially determined. The prolonged effects of torture also extend the temporal scope of these violations.
Judicial precedents may further hold that the inability of victims or the Public Prosecution to file complaints at the time—due to the physical and moral coercion imposed by the Assad regime—constitutes grounds for suspending or overriding the statute of limitations.
As for the non-retroactivity of penal laws, most crimes committed before the enactment of Anti-Torture Law No. 16 of 2022 were classified as misdemeanors. However, Article 48 of the Constitutional Declaration explicitly creates an exception to non-retroactivity for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and all crimes committed by the defunct regime. This provision, combined with Articles 18 and 12, expands the legal basis for addressing these violations in a manner consistent with their seriousness and with international legal standards.
Adapting existing national legislation to meet the legal and political necessity of initiating these trials does not eliminate the urgent need for a dedicated transitional justice law. The current judicial track is not a substitute for transitional justice, nor is it in conflict with it; rather, it forms one component of a broader process. These trials should therefore be understood as an evolving path—one that can be monitored, refined, and expanded in line with Syria’s realities and complexities, and that allows for the gradual development of comprehensive legal and institutional mechanisms for accountability.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
