Precautionary Detention in Syria: An Analysis of Presidential Decree No. 16 of 2025

Introduction:

In the Syrian context, pretrial detention constitutes a coercive legal tool widely used by the former Syrian regime since 2011, as a means of collective punishment and economic imposition without judicial accountability. Cases of pretrial detention have increased significantly against political opponents, displaced persons, civil society workers, and citizens from diverse social backgrounds, without any actual connection to legal disputes or declared criminal charges.
With the issuance of Legislative Decree No. 16 of 2025, which lifted the pretrial seizure of the property of more than 58,000 citizens, there has been an urgent need to analyze this decision within a legal and ethical context, linking it to the ongoing political transition and attempts to restore constitutional legitimacy that has been crumbling for decades. This article aims to deconstruct the legal structure of pretrial detention, analyze the new decision from a constitutional and institutional perspective, and place it within the framework of transitional justice, proposing alternative legislative and institutional paths.

Precautionary Seizure in Syrian Law: Between Text and Practice:

Precautionary seizure is defined in Syrian civil law as a precautionary measure aimed at guaranteeing the rights of the creditor or plaintiff pending the adjudication of a substantive legal dispute.
According to the Code of Civil Procedure, seizure may only be granted based on a specific lawsuit and the existence of legal justifications that justify the fear of losing rights.
However, Legislative Decree No. 63 of 2012, issued at the height of the expansion of security authority following the outbreak of the Syrian revolution, redefined precautionary seizure in a perverse manner. This text granted the Ministry of Finance the authority to impose seizure based on “security letters” issued by intelligence agencies, without the existence of judicial warrants, indictments, or even an open investigation.
This text contributed to the creation of a dual system of procedures: the first is civil – requiring a lawsuit and legal justification; the second is security – not subject to any constitutional guarantees or effective judicial oversight.
This overlap has given security agencies executive authority over citizens’ financial rights, through hidden and semi-secret mechanisms that have transformed detention into an undisclosed punishment and a means of humiliation and oppression.

The Political and Economic Use of Precautionary Seizure:
In practical application, precautionary seizure in Syria cannot be separated from its political function.
It has been used for multiple purposes that go beyond judicial logic, including:

1. Collective punishment for political or humanitarian activity. Thousands of civil society activists, relief workers, and employees of independent organizations have had their property seized without trial, simply because their names appear in security reports or because they are linked to areas outside the regime’s control.
2. Financial extortion of opposition groups. In many cases, seizures have been imposed as an informal negotiating tool, lifted through financial sums or political settlements, without written documentation or clear legal procedures.
3. Targeting Syrians in the diaspora and exile. Thousands of displaced citizens, particularly businessmen and professional elites, have found themselves facing seizure orders against their real estate and commercial properties inside Syria, without any prior legal communication or notification. This reinforces the notion that seizures are a tool for emptying society of its vital components.
4. Redistribution of ownership to benefit networks of influence, as some of the seized properties were put up for sale in “legal” auctions and ended up with parties close to the authorities, a behavior that reflects the transformation of seizures into a means of accumulating economic power, rather than protecting civil rights.

Presidential Decree No. 16 of 2025: Legal and Institutional Analysis:
On May 12, 2025, President Ahmed al-Sharaa issued Legislative Decree No. 16, which addresses the issue of precautionary seizure by lifting it from cases not based on a judicial decision or documented criminal file. The decree was subsequently implemented by the Ministry of Finance in cooperation with the Ministries of Interior and Justice, and covered more than 58,000 cases.
From a legal perspective, the decree represents a significant corrective step because it:

• It implicitly acknowledges the deviation of the previous legislation (Decree No. 63 of 2012) from constitutional rules.
• It restores the principle that citizens’ property may only be affected by a reasoned judicial decision.
• It establishes the separation of the financial system from the authority of the security services by activating civil ministerial procedures instead of relying on security documents.
• It attempts, albeit partially, to restore the principle of equality before the law, as it was announced that some of the new government officials subject to detention requested a postponement of their lifting until justice is served to citizens first.
  However, the decision remains legally incomplete unless it is coupled with complementary measures, such as:
• Explicitly repealing Decree 63 of 2012 or radically amending it.
• Establishing an independent judicial body to review all previous detention decisions.
• Providing individual and transparent appeals for all those harmed by detention, including the possibility of financial compensation or administrative rehabilitation.

Pretrial Detention within the Transitional Justice System:
In human rights literature, retaliatory detention policies are considered part of the economic violations committed under authoritarian regimes. Human rights organizations such as the Syrian Network for Human Rights have classified forced detention as an undeclared tool of repression, practiced outside the law and contributing to the denial of the physical and symbolic existence of dissidents and activists.
In this context, the decision to lift detention in Syria is a step in the transitional justice process, but it still lacks a comprehensive framework. Transitional justice is not limited to redressing harm but also includes:

• Public documentation of violations. A list of the names of those affected, the circumstances of the detention, and the parties that ordered it should be published, to ensure symbolic and historical accountability.
• Institutional accountability: Investigating the manner in which tens of thousands of detention orders were issued should be undertaken, identifying the administrative and security officials responsible for them, and holding them accountable before independent disciplinary or judicial committees.
• Redress the damage. Many have lost economic or social opportunities due to the seizure. Lifting the seizure is not enough. Rather, consideration must be given to compensation mechanisms, whether through support funds or economic reintegration measures.
• Reform the relevant agencies, including the Ministry of Finance and the seizure departments in the real estate and banking departments, to ensure that cases are managed within legal frameworks and not security correspondence.

A Structural Critique of Legislative Decree No. 63 of 2012:
Decree No. 63 of 2012 is one of the most dangerous manifestations of legislative deviation in modern Syria. It is a legal instrument that grants security agencies direct authority to infringe upon property rights without going through the judiciary or respecting the principles of fair procedure. Its critical structure can be analyzed in the following ways:

1. Undermining the principle of separation of powers. The decree granted the Ministry of Finance the authority to impose seizures based on “security letters” issued by the intelligence services. This constitutes an indirect subordination of the financial authority to security control, a deviation from the principle of separation of powers stipulated in Article 132 of the 2012 Constitution and the principle of judicial independence.
2. Violating procedural rules in the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree imposes seizures without prior notice, a statement of reasons, or giving the injured party the opportunity to appeal or defend themselves. This contradicts Article 51 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to litigation, and violates the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly the articles related to precautionary measures and legal guarantees for defendants.
3. Violation of the constitutional right to property. Article 15 of the Syrian Constitution stipulates that private property is protected and may only be expropriated for the public good and in exchange for fair compensation. However, the seizure is implemented under this decree without specifying a public benefit and does not give the right holder the opportunity to request compensation, transforming the measure from a precautionary measure into a legally unjustified punishment.
4. Arbitrary expansion of the scope of suspects. The decree enables security services to place names on detention lists without forensic evidence or even investigation reports, and without any judicial or parliamentary oversight.
   The detention has affected broad segments of civilians, including displaced persons and humanitarian workers, in a pattern that demonstrates the political, rather than legal, nature of the detention.
5. The absence of a transparent official database, as there are no public or electronic records through which citizens or researchers can review or appeal seizure decisions, reinforces the secretive and arbitrary nature of this procedure and violates the principles of openness and accountability, which are pillars of good governance and administrative transparency.
6. Undermining the investment environment and the local economy. The expansion of seizure decisions has scared away local and international investors and restricted the movement of capital. In some cases, these decisions have been used to systematically seize the property of opposition or independent businessmen, in practices that violate commercial and civil law.

Decree No. 63 is not merely a deviant legislative text; it embodies an entire system that links security, law, and finance with the aim of controlling society outside of constitutional frameworks.
Abolishing it is not merely a legal necessity; it is a fundamental requirement to restore the rule of law and provide justice to the thousands harmed by unconstitutional and systematically vindictive decisions.

Conclusion:

The presidential decision to lift pretrial detention on thousands of Syrians represents a first step toward restoring respect for private property and the rights of citizens harmed by security legislation outside the constitutional and institutional context.
However, this move, despite its symbolic and political importance, cannot be separated from the need to review the broader legal system and ensure that future procedures are based on procedural justice and a genuine separation between security and economic rights.
Pretrial detention, as practiced since 2012, has been a tool of political domination rather than a judicial procedure. This requires a structural shift in the philosophy of legislation and law enforcement in Syria.
True reform lies not only in reversing the harm, but also in acknowledging its occurrence, holding those responsible accountable, and building guarantees of non-recurrence.
Accordingly, we, in the Scientific Office of the Syrian Future Movement, recommend the following:

1. Explicitly and legally repeal Decree No. 63 of 2012, and suspend any security powers that permit extrajudicial detention.
2. Draft a new law on pretrial detention that is regulated solely by the civil judiciary, guarantees the right to notification and appeal, and is subject to oversight by the Public Prosecution and independent judges.
3. Establish an independent body to review previous detention cases, including judges, lawyers, and legal experts. This body will examine each case individually and issue recommendations for accountability or compensation, as appropriate.
4. Adopt a fair compensation system for victims through a national transitional justice fund, funded from the state budget or from illegally confiscated assets, and administered according to standards of transparency and equality.
5. Restructure financial detention departments in government institutions, provide them with training in public law and civil procedure rules, and protect them from political and security influence.
6. Include arbitrary detention as a transitional justice issue in Syria within a process that includes accountability, documentation, and official recognition, and serve as a basis for legal and financial sector reform designs.

This path, despite its complexity, is what ensures that the tools of the law are not reused to perpetuate injustice, and that the new Syria is a state that respects the property of its citizens, protects their procedural rights, and separates executive authority from the independence of the judiciary.

Scientific Office
Studies

Sources:

1. Syrian Arab Republic. Legislative Decree No. 63 of 2012, regarding pretrial detention. Official Gazette, Issue 27, July 25, 2012.
2. Syrian Arab Republic. Legislative Decree No. 16 of 2025, regarding the handling of pretrial detention cases. Official Gazette, Issue 19, May 12, 2025.
3. Syrian Ministry of Finance. “Press Release on Lifting Pretrial Detention on 58,082 Citizens.” Official Publication, July 23, 2025.
4. Syrian Network for Human Rights. Pretrial Detention as a Tool of Economic Retaliation in Syria. Special Report, April 2021.
5. Syrian Center for Legal Studies. Administrative Detention in Syria: A Reading of the Intersection between Security and Finance. Policy Paper, August 2022.
6. OHCHR – United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Rule of Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Reparations Programmes. United Nations, 2008.
7. UN Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 27: Freedom of Movement. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, 1999.
8. South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Final Report, Volume Six, Reparations and Rehabilitation. Cape Town, 1998.
9. Equity and Reconciliation Commission of Morocco. Summary Report and Recommendations. Rabat, 2005.
10. UN International Law Commission. Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, A/56/10, 2001.