Can Syria deliver transitional justice after regime fall?

As Syria emerges from the years-long conflict that ended with the fall of Bashar al-Assad in 2024, Damascus and international partners say they are preparing mechanisms to address mass abuses and the fate of thousands of missing people. The new interim government has created two national bodies — a National Commission for Transitional Justice (NCTJ) and a National Commission for Missing Persons (NCM) — and has won public backing from several UN member states, but rights groups and observers warn serious obstacles remain.

What has been established so far

In May 2026, the interim president issued decrees creating two commissions: one to pursue transitional justice and a separate commission to locate and identify missing and forcibly disappeared people. Syrian officials told a UN Arria-formula meeting on July 21 that both commissions are operating and that the missing‑persons body has already taken steps such as responding to reports of suspected mass grave sites and clarifying the fate of some individuals, according to a report by Syrian state news agency SANA. The head of the NCTJ told the meeting the commission is preparing a draft transitional justice law and pursuing both a national track of victim engagement and an international track to draw on global expertise and cooperation on archives and digital security.

International support and regional diplomacy

Diplomatic statements released after ministerial meetings in Aqaba, Riyadh and a Paris conference in early 2025 say international partners — including European governments, Gulf states and the UN — back a Syrian‑led, Syrian‑owned transitional process and pledged technical and political support. The Paris joint statement explicitly noted support for a transitional justice system and for efforts to resolve cases of missing Syrians, while inviting further international mobilisation at a Brussels conference, underlining that donors see accountability as part of Syria’s reintegration and reconstruction agenda.

Critics point to narrow mandate and eroding trust

Human rights advocates and litigators have raised early concerns about how the transitional justice commission is defined and how it is operating. Reporting by Deutsche Welle in June 2025 summarised criticism that the NCTJ’s founding decree appears to anchor its mandate mainly to crimes by Assad‑era security structures, excluding other parties to the conflict. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Syrian civil society groups were cited as warning that a narrowly drawn mandate would leave victims of abuses by non‑state armed groups, extremist groups and other actors without avenues for redress.

That same reporting highlighted a lack of transparency: observers say the missing‑persons commission has proceeded more publicly, while the transitional justice commission has been secretive, with no comprehensive publicly available plan and little explanation for selective detentions or releases. One example that drew public ire was the release, in mid‑2025, of former pro‑regime fighters including a figure implicated in the widely publicised Tadamon massacre; the Committee for Civil Peace in Damascus described some releases as made in the “interests of peace and reconciliation,” but victims’ families and activists called the moves detrimental to trust in due process.

Practical hurdles: evidence, capacity and competing priorities

Even if mandates are broadened and transparency improves, experts warn on-the-ground constraints will be daunting. The UN assistant secretary general responsible for the independent missing‑persons mechanism told the Security Council meeting that information on the missing is often concealed or scattered and that building large‑scale, multidisciplinary capacity is essential. State statements to the same meeting emphasised the scale of the challenge and called for international technical support, while noting institutional reforms are under way.

Transitional justice in other post‑conflict settings has required secure archives, witness protection, forensic expertise for mass grave exhumations, independent prosecutors and judges, and sustained funding. The Syrian context also presents security concerns: reporting has recorded continued cycles of assassinations and extrajudicial killings in some localities, which rights monitors say can act as a form of vigilante justice when formal mechanisms are seen to fail.

Political dynamics and the question of impartiality

Whether Damascus’s process will be perceived as impartial matters both for victims and for the international community’s willingness to cooperate. Some governments at the UN meeting encouraged a national process and lauded the creation of the commissions; others — and many rights organisations — have emphasised that transitional justice institutions must be demonstrably independent and capable of investigating abuses by all parties to the conflict. The Paris ministerial statement supporting a Syrian‑led transition also urged that accountability efforts take into account work by international courts and UN mechanisms and civil society evidence preservation initiatives, signalling recognition that a purely domestic approach may be insufficient for complex atrocity claims.

Timeline and next steps

Officials at the UN meeting said the NCTJ has been working on two tracks — international cooperation on archives and a domestic engagement process — and is drafting transitional justice legislation. The missing‑persons commission reported activity on dozens of suspected burial sites and said it had clarified individual cases. Paris and other diplomatic gatherings signalled a timetable of diplomatic and donor engagement, with a Brussels conference framed as a next opportunity to mobilise resources for reconstruction and related reforms.

Where answers are still missing

• Scope: Observers say it is not yet clear whether the NCTJ’s mandate will be broadened to include crimes by all parties to the conflict.
• Independence: Civil society groups continue to demand guarantees that commissions will operate free from political influence.
• Transparency and due process: Critics point to unexplained releases of accused figures and limited public reporting from the NCTJ.
• Capacity and resources: Forensic, archival and prosecutorial capacity remains to be built with sustained international assistance.
• Victim participation: How victims, survivors and diaspora groups will be meaningfully included is still being negotiated.

Implications for the region

How Syria handles accountability will affect regional diplomatic rehabilitation, donor willingness to finance reconstruction and the prospects for sustainable reconciliation. The Paris statement explicitly linked transitional justice to Syria’s reintegration and called for support that could include lifting some sanctions as reforms advance; conversely, incomplete or biased accountability could prolong grievances and fuel local violence or cross‑border tensions.

Bottom line

Syria has taken institution‑building steps and attracted diplomatic backing for a transitional justice and missing‑persons agenda. But independent experts, rights groups and reporting point to persistent doubts over the narrowness of mandates, transparency, selective releases and limited public planning. Delivering meaningful, impartial accountability will require clearer legal mandates, demonstrable independence, robust technical assistance and time — and international partners will have to decide whether to condition reconstruction and reintegration support on credible progress.

“Achieving transitional justice in Syria is likely to take a long time,” said a Syrian teacher quoted in reporting that documented public scepticism about early government moves on accountability.