World

Can toppled Syrian president Bashar al-Assad be brought to justice?

Published

1 year ago

December 19, 2024

Can toppled Syrian president Bashar al-Assad be brought to justice?

Despite the legal and political barriers to prosecution, human rights experts are optimistic that al-Assad and regime officials could one day be held accountable for their crimes in a court of law.

In Syria, celebrations of the fall of Bashar al-Assad have been mingled with a sense of horror, as gruesome evidence of the atrocities committed by his regime emerge.

Mass graveyards and the infamous prisons that were central to the deposed dictator’s coercive rule have been uncovered.

They bear traces of the brutal suffering inflicted by the regime.

Chaotic scenes of former detainees, their relatives and journalists trawling through paperwork in the detention centres have sparked international pleas on Syria’s new de facto leaders to ensure evidence is preserved for future criminal prosecutions.

Al-Assad and his father, Hafez, have been accused of a litany of crimes and abuses over the past 54 years, including torture, rape, mass executions, enforced disappearances and chemical attacks.

The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) estimates that at least 15,000 Syrians have been tortured to death since the civil war broke out in 2011.

But with al-Assad in exile in Russia and many of his entourage suspected to be in Iran, there are several legal and political obstacles that stand in the way of criminal accountability.

The Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) is the most obvious international court of law for prosecuting individuals for such serious crimes. But the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Syria as the country is not a state party to the court’s treaty, the Treaty of Rome.

The UN Security Council can in principle refer a case to the ICC, granting it jurisdiction. But that would certainly be vetoed by the Kremlin, given its alliance with al-Assad and its own complicity in the crimes.

Both Russia and China blocked such a referral ten years ago.

Speaking to Euronews, Balkees Jarrah, associate director for international justice at Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on Syria’s new de facto authorities to consider granting jurisdiction to the ICC: “We believe Syria’s new leadership should immediately make clear its commitment to justice and accountability,” she said.

“This includes ratifying the Rome Treaty and giving the International Criminal Court retroactive jurisdiction so that the prosecutor can examine crimes committed over the last years.”

All eyes on de facto Syrian leaders

A more viable option in the current political climate is for trials to be held in criminal courts both within and outside Syria.

Experts say it’s too soon to tell whether the new de facto rulers will be able to ensure any Syrian criminal proceedings are carried out safely and in line with international standards.

“We don’t know what the future state of Syria will look like, how the different institutions will work and how well they will cooperate with each other. So this is just something we cannot predict,” according to Elisabeth Hoffberger-Pippan of the Leibniz Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF).

“The ideal option is to have criminal proceedings in Syria itself that meet fair trial standards, without use of the death penalty. And there is a need to ensure the safety for witnesses and victims to come forward with testimonies,” Vito Todeschini, legal advisor for Amnesty International, told Euronews.

The main rebel group in the new administration is the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), designated a terrorist group by the UN Security Council and formerly linked to al-Qaeda.

Its leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolan, has vowed to “pursue” the regime’s henchmen in Syria and has called on countries to “hand over those who fled” so that justice can be served.

The rebel fighters have also spoken of an amnesty for all military personnel conscripted into service under al-Assad.

But it is currently inconceivable for al-Assad himself to be extradited to stand trial in either a Syrian or non-Syrian court, as there is no political appetite or motive for Moscow to hand him over. Iran is also unlikely to extradite regime officials who have fled there.

Yet, experts consulted by Euronews have expressed hope that al-Assad and the regime’s high-level torturers can one day be held accountable, if the geopolitical conditions change.

“If the sudden fall of the al-Assad regime has shown us anything it is that things can change quite rapidly,” Human Rights Watch’s Jarrah said. “We can’t predict what happens in the future nor preclude the possibility of Assad answering for his crimes one day in a court of law.”

“What we also need to consider right now is how intense and how strong the bond is between Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad,” Hoffberger-Pippan of PRIF said. “I do think that there is a chance Russia might not be as interested in al-Assad in the future because the geopolitical environment is changing in a way that makes it less important for Russia to protect him.”

Calls for international collaboration and preservation of evidence

Universal jurisdiction also allows non-Syrian courts to prosecute Syrians for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture.

Criminal cases against regime officials have already been filed in Austrian, French, German, Norwegian, Swedish and US courts, many of which have already successfully pressed charges.

The first international trial on torture in Syria was heard before the Koblenz Higher Regional Court in Germany in 2020. Two former high-level officials of the al-Assad regime were charged, one of whom was found guilty of crimes against humanity and handed a life-long sentence.

In November 2023, a French court issued international arrest warrants for Bashar al-Assad, his brother and two officials over an attack against civilians using chemical weapons in 2013.

According to the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), universal jurisdiction carries promise but should be a “fall-back option” if processes within Syria fail.

The push towards justice should be “Syrian-led”, it says.

For any trials, well-preserved evidence is crucial.

During the decades-long regime, offenses were documented by international organisations and Syrian civil society with the help of whistleblowers. The so-called ‘Caesar’ photos, taken by a Syrian military police officer who defected a decade ago, are perhaps the most well-known evidence of torture which has led to criminal proceedings in European courts.

The UN’s International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) has a mandate to collect, preserve and analyse evidence to be used in criminal proceedings and supports Syrian civil society in judicial processes.

Its lead investigator Robert Petit has described “papers strewn all over the floor, people leaving with computers, hard drives burned and smashed” in regime centres during the rebels’ offensive.

“Those in control of these prisons need to safeguard materials in these facilities so that the truth can be told and so that those responsible are held accountable,” HRW’s Jarrah explained.

Euronews reached out to the UN to ask whether its investigators have yet been authorised by Syria’s de facto leaders to gain access to the ground, but has not yet received a reply.

According to the ECHHR, there is also real risk that evidence can be confiscated “to be used as political or commercial capital” or be compromised by secret services agents from countries “interested in destroying evidence and archives.”

Click to comment

World

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

Published

1 hour ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

UN Human Rights Council chief cuts off speaker criticizing US-sanctioned official

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) abruptly cut off a video statement after the speaker began criticizing several United Nations officials, including one who has been sanctioned by the Trump administration. The video message was being played during a U.N. session in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday morning.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the and president of Human Rights, called out several U.N. officials in her message, including U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who is the subject of U.S. sanctions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions against Albanese July 9, 2025, saying that she “has spewed unabashed antisemitism, expressed support for terrorism and open contempt for the United States, Israel and the West.”

“That bias has been apparent across the span of her career, including recommending that the ICC, without a legitimate basis, issue arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant,” Rubio added.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Francesca Albanese (Getty Images)

“I was the only American U.N.-accredited NGO with a speaking slot, and I wasn’t allowed even to conclude my 90 seconds of allotted time. Free speech is non-existent at the U.N. so-called ‘Human Rights Council,’” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

Bayefsky noted the irony of the council cutting off her video in a proceeding that was said to be an “interactive dialogue,” an event during which experts are allowed to speak to the council about human rights issues.

“I was cut off after naming Francesca Albanese, Navi Pillay and Chris Sidoti for covering up Palestinian use of rape as a weapon of war and trafficking in blatant antisemitism. I named the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, who is facing disturbing sexual assault allegations but still unaccountable almost two years later. Those are the people and the facts that the United Nations wants to protect and hide,” Bayefsky told Fox News Digital.

“It is an outrage that I am silenced and singled out for criticism on the basis of naming names.”

Bayefsky’s statement was cut off as she accused Albanese and Navi Pillay, the former chair of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory; and Chris Sidoti, a commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. She also slammed Khan, who has faced rape allegations. Khan has denied the sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Had her video message been played in full, Bayefsky would have gone on to criticize Türk’s recent report for not demanding accountability for the “Palestinian policy to pay to kill Jews, including Hamas terror boss Yahya Sinwar who got half a million dollars in blood money.”

When the video was cut short, Human Rights Council President Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro characterized Bayefsky’s remarks as “derogatory, insulting and inflammatory” and said that they were “not acceptable.”

“The language used by the speaker cannot be allowed as it has exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council which we all in this room hold to,” Suryodipuro said.

The Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, Feb. 26, 2025. (Denis Balibouse/Reuters)

MELANIA TRUMP TO TAKE THE GAVEL AT UN SECURITY COUNCIL IN HISTORIC FIRST

In response to Fox News Digital’s request for comment, Human Rights Council Media Officer Pascal Sim said the council has had long-established rules on what it considers to be acceptable language.

“Rulings regarding the form and language of interventions in the Human Rights Council are established practices that have been in place throughout the existence of the council and used by all council presidents when it comes to ensuring respect, tolerance and dignity inherent to the discussion of human rights issues,” Sim told Fox News Digital.

When asked if the video had been reviewed ahead of time, Sim said it was assessed for length and audio quality to allow for interpretation, but that the speakers are ultimately “responsible for the content of their statement.”

“The video statement by the NGO ‘Touro Law Center, The Institute on Human Rights and The Holocaust’ was interrupted when it was deemed that the language exceeded the limits of tolerance and respect within the framework of the council and could not be tolerated,” Sim said.

“As the presiding officer explained at the time, all speakers are to remain within the appropriate framework and terminology used in the council’s work, which is well known by speakers who routinely participate in council proceedings. Following that ruling, none of the member states of the council have objected to it.”

Flag alley at the United Nations’ European headquarters during the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, Sept. 11, 2023. (Denis Balibouse/File Photo/Reuters)

UNRWA OFFICIALS LOBBY CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS AGAINST TRUMP TERRORIST DESIGNATION THREAT

While Bayefsky’s statement was cut off, other statements accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing were allowed to be played and read in full.

This is not the first time that Bayefsky was interrupted. Exactly one year ago, on Feb. 27, 2025, her video was cut off when she mentioned the fate of Ariel and Kfir Bibas. Jürg Lauber, president of the U.N. Human Rights Council at the time, stopped the video and declared that Bayefsky had used inappropriate language.

Bayefsky began the speech by saying, “The world now knows Palestinian savages murdered 9-month-old baby Kfir,” and she ws almost immediately cut off by Lauber.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Sorry, I have to interrupt,” Lauber abruptly said as the video of Bayefsky was paused. Lauber briefly objected to the “language” used in the video, but then allowed it to continue. After a few more seconds, the video was shut off entirely.

Lauber reiterated that “the language that’s used by the speaker cannot be tolerated,” adding that it “exceeds clearly the limits of tolerance and respect.”

Last year, when the previous incident occurred, Bayefsky said she believed the whole thing was “stage-managed,” as the council had advanced access to her video and a transcript and knew what she would say.

Rachel Wolf is a breaking news writer for Fox News Digital and FOX Business.

World

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

Published

2 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

Did the EU bypass Hungary’s veto on Ukraine’s €90 billion loan?

A post on X by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola has triggered a wave of misinformation linked to the EU’s €90 billion support loan to Ukraine, which is designed to help Kyiv meet its general budget and defence needs amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

Hungary said earlier this week that it would block both the loan — agreed by EU leaders in December — and a new EU sanctions package against Moscow amid a dispute over oil supplies.

Shortly afterwards, Metsola posted on X that she had signed the Ukraine support loan on behalf of the parliament.

She said the funds would be used to maintain essential public services, support Ukraine’s defence, protect shared European security, and anchor Ukraine’s future within Europe.

The announcement triggered a wave of reactions online, with some claiming Hungary’s veto had been ignored, but this is incorrect.

Metsola did sign the loan on behalf of the European Parliament, but that’s only one step in the EU’s legislative process. Her signature does not mean the loan has been definitively implemented.

How the process works

In December, after failing to reach an agreement on using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort, the European Council agreed in principle to provide €90 billion to help Kyiv meet its budgetary and military needs over the next two years.

On 14 January, the European Commission put forward a package of legislative proposals to ensure continued financial support for Ukraine in 2026 and 2027.

These included a proposal to establish a €90 billion Ukraine support loan, amendments to the Ukraine Facility — the EU instrument used to deliver budgetary assistance — and changes to the EU’s multiannual financial framework so the loan could be backed by any unused budgetary “headroom”.

Under EU law, these proposals must be adopted by both the European Parliament and the European Council. Because the loan requires amendments to EU budgetary rules, it ultimately needs unanimous approval from all member states.

Metsola’s signature therefore does not amount to a final decision, nor does it override Hungary’s veto.

The oil dispute behind Hungary’s opposition

Budapest says its objections are linked to a dispute over the Druzhba pipeline, a Soviet-era route that carries Russian oil via Ukraine to Hungary and Slovakia.

According to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), Hungary and Slovakia imported an estimated €137 million worth of Russian crude through the pipeline in January alone, under a temporary EU exemption.

Oil flows reportedly stopped in late January after a Russian air strike that Kyiv says damaged the pipeline’s southern branch in western Ukraine. Hungary disputes this, with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accusing Ukraine of blocking it from being used.

Speaking in Kyiv alongside European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the pipeline had been damaged by Russia, not Kyiv.

He added that repairs were dangerous and could not be carried out quickly without putting Ukrainian servicemen in danger.

Tensions escalated further after reports that Ukraine struck a Russian pumping station serving the pipeline. Orbán responded by ordering increased security at critical infrastructure sites, claiming Kyiv was attempting to disrupt Hungary’s energy system.