It’s high time the UK government pursued justice for the Syrian people

Surely a decade of monstrous violence in Syria is enough to spur us into action, writes Bel Trew

Anwar Raslan was found guilty of overseeing the torture of 4,000 people, which resulted 27 deaths (which he denies) (AP)

On Thursday, in the first trial of its kind worldwide, a German court convicted the most high-ranking Syrian officer yet of crimes against humanity. He was found guilty of overseeing the torture of 4,000 people, which resulted in 27 deaths (which he denies).

It was a painstaking two-year-long investigative process that culminated in a life sentence, and a landmark and rare victory for torture survivors.

The UK special representative for Syria dubbed it “historic” and “a step towards justice and accountability for the Syrian people”. The British ambassador to Germany tweeted that the UK advocates for “the consistent prosecution of war crimes under criminal law”.

And so, if this is how the UK feels, then why aren’t we doing more? Why are we effectively reduced to applauding other states’ efforts from the sidelines?

The grim truth is that a decade on from the start of Syria’s horrific war, there is little hope of Syrians getting justice within the country, where rights groups say tens of thousands of people have been arbitrarily arrested, unlawfully detained, forcibly disappeared, and tortured. Syria’s rulers have repeatedly denied this and so have no interest in investigating the actions of their own apparatuses.

This has meant the onus is on action abroad, and this is where Koblenz fits in and where the UK at a state level could do more, if it were to decide to take action.

There are, in fact, at least four separate avenues the UK authorities could pursue. The first is following in the footsteps of Germany by utilising the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows states to prosecute crimes no matter where they occur, and is why two ex-Syrian officials ended up in a courtroom in a sleepy west German town.

The second is taking action in the European Court of Human Rights. The third involves the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – following the recent example of the Netherlands and Canada. The fourth is triggering investigations at the International Criminal Court  (ICC) – which, although complicated, is still possible through creative means. More on that later.

So far our government, as far as I am aware, has pursued none of these options. And I struggle to see why. This is a frustration shared by British legal firms and organisations who are forced to explore increasingly creative ways to push through investigations into some of the more heinous crimes committed elsewhere in the world.

The British government has dedicated significant resources to, for example, helping train Syrian lawyers to document crimes but, for whatever reason, hasn’t actually brought justice before an English court, explains Toby Cadman. He is a barrister and co-founder of the London-based Guernica 37 Group that is exploring and supporting multiple ways to prosecute crimes committed in Syria.

Using the principle of universal jurisdiction, Guernica 37 has actually filed complaints with London’s Metropolitan Police on Syria that are still under review. Among them is an investigation into the arrest, torture and death of British surgeon Dr Abbas Khan inside a Syrian prison, which a British jury ruled in 2014 was an unlawful killing. This was referred to the Met at the time but they didn’t consider it due to a lack of sufficient evidence, largely due to a lack of resources, Cadman adds.

He argues our own investigative law force and prosecutorial authorities should take the initiative. Cadman told me: “The UK needs to take a hard look at what it is doing and to give law enforcement and our prosecutorial authorities the resources to work.”

British courts aside, there are international bodies to turn to. There is the European Court of Human Rights, and although this court has no jurisdiction over Syria, there are ongoing efforts to bring a case in the court against Russia for the alleged bombings of hospitals in Syria (an accusation Moscow vehemently denies). If successful, it could result in Moscow being forced to pay compensation to the victims of those attacks and their surviving families.

Human rights lawyers have told me the UK theoretically could bring forward the case itself, which it has not yet done.

Another option is exploring Dutch and Canadian examples. The Netherlands announced in September 2020 that it had notified Syria of its intention to hold it accountable for torture under the United Nations Convention against Torture. Canada joined these efforts in March 2021. Both could lead to proceedings against Syria at the ICJ.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

The ICC is more complicated. This court does not have jurisdiction over Syria, but separate applications have been filed by G37 and by London-based firm Stoke White and their counsel Rodney Dixon QC, representing a group of Syrian refugees, to open investigations into the alleged crime against humanity of unlawful deportation of Syrians to Jordan. The court can still act on the basis that the alleged crimes commenced in Syria and were completed on ICC territory in Jordan, where Syrians are now living in refugee camps.

The ICC prosecutor has yet to decide on this. But the UK as a prominent state party could petition directly to the ICC to exercise its jurisdiction over this matter, expediting the process. The UK also has the power to challenge an ICC prosecutor’s refusal by taking it to the ICC’s judges, something victims of the alleged crime cannot do.

Koblenz has demonstrated what can be done if there is state will to act, explains Rodney Dixon QC, counsel on behalf of Syrian refugees who filed at the ICC. “For too long it has been purported that pursuing war crimes in Syria is beyond the reach of international courts. In truth, there are multiple avenues available to States to achieve accountability,” he tells me.

“It is disappointing that few have taken the initiative. Their calls for justice should now be matched by them deploying the existing legal remedies.”

Surely a decade of monstrous violence in Syria is enough to spur us into action.