Special Criminal Courts for Prosecuting International Crimes: Identifying the Most Suitable Option for Syria

Executive Summary:

This report begins with a central question: how can criminal justice be achieved in Syria after the fall of the regime, given the multiplicity of available options, proposals, and precedents in other countries?

The report examines three models of special criminal courts and weighs their advantages and challenges in light of international experiences:

• The International Criminal Court (ICC) model: Established by a Security Council resolution, staffed by independent international judges, and funded by the United Nations, this model ensures neutrality and independence. However, its greatest challenge lies in the inherently political nature of its establishment, and the application of international standards—such as the prohibition of the death penalty—may create gaps between international justice and domestic expectations.
• The Hybrid (Mixed) Court model: This combines international and national judges within a composite legal framework, typically created through an agreement with the United Nations. It provides a balance between international legitimacy and national ownership, while also building local capacity. Yet, it may face difficulties such as insufficient international cooperation or lack of cohesion among its judicial members. Hybrid courts take various forms: some are established by international resolutions and managed by international missions, others through agreements between the host government and the UN under mutually agreed standards, and still others through treaties between multiple states. The proportion of local versus international judges varies by context—for instance, Cambodia’s model involved a majority of national judges, while Sierra Leone’s model was dominated by international judges.
• The National Special Court model: Established under domestic law, this model can prosecute large numbers of cases with civil party participation and apply the national penal code. However, experiences in Iraq and Bangladesh have shown that such courts may suffer from political interference and selective prosecutions, undermining the integrity of justice.

The report concludes that a National Special Court represents the most practical option for Syria, provided it adheres to several essential conditions: the prosecution of senior officials, full compliance with fair trial standards, and guarantees of independence and international legitimacy to ensure external cooperation and support.

As a complementary option, the report recommends considering a Hybrid Court as a secondary pathway—through a temporary mechanism established within the Syrian judiciary that includes a national majority alongside international judges, and that could gradually transition into a fully national court. This would strengthen local capacities while simultaneously ensuring international recognition and judicial protection for victims.

Finally, the report stresses that the success of any chosen model depends on establishing a clear legal framework that bolsters the court’s legitimacy, defines its jurisdiction and procedures for appointing judges, and ensures sufficient resources and expertise for national courts to prosecute lower-level perpetrators of international crimes.

To read the full report click here (Arabic)