Syria Repeals Terrorism Court Law in Landmark Legislative Move
Syria's People's Assembly has moved to dismantle one of the most controversial judicial bodies from the previous administration, raising questions about how past rulings will be addressed.
Damascus has taken a significant step toward judicial reform by approving a bill that repeals the 2012 law establishing the Terrorism Court. According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR), this legislative action represents a critical move to dismantle an exceptional judicial institution that was widely used to prosecute political opponents and participants in the Syrian revolution. The decision marks a symbolic break with the legal frameworks of the ousted regime, although experts caution that the practical implications for affected individuals remain complex.
Fadel Abdul Ghany, director of SNHR, described the move as a necessary constitutional correction. He emphasized that the Terrorism Court was not merely a flawed regular tribunal but a body created under exceptional legislation that fundamentally undermined fair trial guarantees. By abolishing the court, the new leadership aims to signal a shift away from the previous system of justice, where procedural rules were frequently disregarded in favor of expedited prosecutions against those deemed enemies of the state.
Documenting the scale of judicial abuses
The network has documented extensive evidence of systemic violations during the court’s operation. Abdul Ghany noted that the court frequently relied on security reports and confessions allegedly extracted under duress, while restricting the right to legal defense. Transparency was also a significant issue, as rulings were rarely published and the standards for issuing them remained opaque. The scale of the institution's reach was vast, with records indicating that at least 10,767 individuals were brought before the court by late 2020, resulting in approximately 90,560 cases.
Beyond criminal prosecutions, the court played a central role in economic dispossession. SNHR reported documenting nearly 320,000 citizens affected by seizure and confiscation orders between 2012 and 2024. These measures, which included the seizure of property in thousands of cases, formed part of a broader system established by the former regime to penalize and dispossess those associated with the opposition. The abolition of the court is seen as a necessary first step to halt these ongoing legal effects.
Distinguishing repeal from restitution
Legal experts highlight a crucial distinction between abolishing the court and reversing its past decisions. While the repeal ends the court’s jurisdiction going forward, it does not automatically erase the consequences of previous rulings. Abdul Ghany stressed that a clear implementation mechanism is required to address the rights of those already affected. Without such mechanisms, individuals may continue to face legal repercussions from judgments made under the repealed law, despite the institution no longer existing.
According to the SNHR, a comprehensive approach must include lifting wanted notices and travel bans, as well as correcting criminal, employment, and civil records. It is particularly important for relatives of deceased or forcibly disappeared persons to seek annulment of rulings and restoration of their rights. The forward-looking challenge now lies in translating this legislative victory into concrete administrative actions that provide tangible relief to the thousands of families still grappling with the legal legacy of the former regime.
