French Court to Rule on al-Assad’s Immunity Over Chemical Attacks

France’s highest court is set to announce a pivotal ruling on Friday regarding whether former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad can be stripped of his head-of-state immunity. This decision could pave the way for an in absentia trial linked to alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria. The ruling holds the potential to reshape the legal landscape for prosecuting both current and former leaders accused of committing atrocities.

The Cour de Cassation will deliberate on al-Assad’s immunity as he faces accusations related to chemical attacks in Ghouta in 2013 and Douma in 2018. The former president, who currently resides in Russia, has denied any involvement in these incidents and has engaged lawyers to represent him in this ongoing legal battle. Should the court rule against al-Assad, it would set a significant legal precedent for holding leaders accountable for their actions while in office.

Mazen Darwish, president of the Syrian Centre for Media, emphasized the ruling’s importance, stating it would represent a “huge victory for the victims.” He noted that a favorable decision could not only impact Syrian victims but also open avenues for similar actions against leaders from other nations. “This will be the first time that a domestic investigative judge has the right to issue an arrest warrant for a president during his rule,” Darwish explained.

Legal experts highlight that the outcome could also extend to other members of al-Assad’s regime. For instance, the ruling might allow the pursuit of a money laundering case against Adib Mayalah, the former Syrian Central Bank governor and Minister of Economy. Mayalah’s legal representatives have argued that he enjoys immunity under international law, which traditionally protects heads of state from prosecution for actions taken during their tenure.

The concept of immunity for heads of state has long been a contentious issue. According to French lawyer Jeanne Sulzer, this legal shield is “almost a taboo” and was originally designed to facilitate international dialogue and travel. “You have to wait until the person is not sitting in office to be able to prosecute,” Sulzer noted, referencing her involvement in the case against al-Assad for the 2013 chemical attack.

Syria has been embroiled in a brutal civil war since 2011, which began in response to the oppressive regime of al-Assad and his father, Hafez al-Assad. This conflict has resulted in the deaths of over half a million people, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, and has displaced millions more, with many seeking refuge in neighboring countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, as well as Europe.

As the court prepares to make its ruling, the implications extend far beyond the conflict in Syria. This case could redefine the boundaries of international law and the accountability of leaders who commit crimes against humanity. The outcome may also influence future legal actions against other leaders facing similar allegations, marking a significant moment in the ongoing pursuit of justice for victims of war crimes worldwide.