In the cells of Saydnaya prison, where the lives of thousands of detainees have been frozen at the threshold of oblivion, and where the stone walls have become silent witnesses to exceptional brutality, a legal academic study titled “From Silence to Trial: Saydnaya Prison as a Model of Exiled Prisons” emerges. This study transforms those walls into a coherent legal text, moving the case from the realm of emotional testimonies to the space of rigorous legal analysis. This step aligns perfectly with the vision of the Legal Office of the Syrian Future Movement, which believes that sound scientific documentation is the true path to accountability and uncovering the truth.
The study, prepared by lawyer Ghazal Hisham Ota Bashi under the supervision of Professor Ali Al-Bardakani for the title of Professor of Law, is a legal thesis worthy of attention. Its scientific methodology makes Saydnaya prison a case study for a deeper understanding of the crisis of the rule of law in Syria. This places it at the heart of the Syrian Future Movement’s Legal Office’s concerns, which views the cases of detainees and the disappeared as the core of strategic human rights work.
First, the problem of the law between text and practice:
This problem is central to the research and boils down to a burning question: How can a state institution, governed by a constitution and laws that prohibit torture and guarantee fair trials, become a lawless place where the most heinous human rights violations are committed beyond the reach of the judiciary?
This question presents the researcher with a structural contradiction: Syrian constitutional texts (Articles 33 and 51 of the 2012 Constitution) extol freedom and dignity, the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that detention can only be carried out by judicial order, and the Penal Code punishes unlawful detention (Article 357).
However, the researcher demonstrates, through reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Commission of Inquiry, that Saydnaya was run by entirely parallel mechanisms, where the orders of the security services superseded judicial rulings, and constitutional guarantees became mere ink on paper. This is what the human rights office places at the heart of its monitoring priorities: identifying the gap between legal texts and actual practice, and working to bridge it through reform recommendations that prevent the recurrence of such violations in the future.
Secondly, documentation that transforms the violation from an individual case to a systematic one:
The researcher did not merely list the violations, but rather legally characterized them. This is the fundamental difference in her methodology, which is the same methodology adopted by the human rights office in its documentation, based on accuracy and objectivity.
She does not present us with a tragic story of torture, but rather refers these acts to clear legal texts, namely:
- Arbitrary arrest has become a violation of the Penal Code and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which represents a clear breach of the principle of legality in criminal law.
- Systematic torture has been classified as an independent crime under the Convention against Torture (1984). It is a crime that is not subject to any statute of limitations and cannot be justified by any exceptional circumstances, thus reinforcing the principle of no impunity.
- Enforced disappearance is classified under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as a crime against humanity if it occurs as part of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population. This classification opens the door to international accountability mechanisms.
With this shift, the researcher moves her work from the realm of “news documentation” to that of “legal evidence,” providing material that enables any judicial body—national or international—to initiate the prosecution of perpetrators of these acts. This is the objective the human rights office seeks to achieve by preparing human rights files and submitting them to the relevant authorities in accordance with established legal procedures.
Thirdly, between the military judiciary and the absence of oversight:
One of the most prominent findings of the research is the legal ambiguity surrounding the jurisdiction of Saydnaya Prison.
Although it was established by a decision of the Ministry of Defense as a military prison, it held thousands of civilians. This constitutes a clear violation of the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts and contradicts the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination in treatment. This legal vacuum has transformed the prison into a closed entity, inaccessible to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, inaccessible to lawyers, and even inaccessible to international organizations, which cannot accurately determine the number of inmates.
This underscores the human rights office’s commitment to subjecting all detention centers to effective judicial oversight and ensuring unrestricted access for competent judicial authorities.
The researcher points out that the multiplicity of judicial jurisdictions (civil, military, and security) has not resulted in rigorous oversight, but rather in gray areas that have escaped any accountability.
This is not merely a technical issue, but a crisis of the entire state, where its institutions operate above the law. This necessitates, as the researcher and the human rights office emphasize, a comprehensive review of the legislation governing the work of security and judicial bodies to guarantee a unified judicial authority and eliminate duplication.
Fourth, Transitional Justice:
The final chapter of the research bears the ambitious title: “Towards Rebuilding the Concept of the Rule of Law.” Here, the study shifts from diagnosing the problem to prescribing the solution, in line with the legal office’s mission to support transitional justice, uncover the truth, and provide reparations.
The researcher examines the South African model of transitional justice, which balanced truth-seeking with reconciliation, and the models of Argentina and Chile in prosecuting perpetrators of violations during military rule.
She concludes that Syria—in any future transitional phase—will not be able to bypass the Saydnaya case if it truly wants to build a state of law. This can be achieved through:
- Reforming the legislative system and subjecting all detention facilities to effective judicial oversight to ensure that violations are not repeated in the future.
- Establishing an independent national mechanism for receiving complaints and protecting witnesses and survivors, one that is credible and capable of combating impunity.
- Cooperating with international mechanisms, including the International Criminal Court, especially since the Saydnaya crimes are not subject to any statute of limitations, thus keeping the door open for accountability, no matter how much time passes.
The human rights office, in its charter, was keen to embody these orientations within its core tasks. The movement aims to support transitional justice and accountability efforts and contribute to developing human rights policies that ensure the tragedy is not repeated.
Fifth, the value of this research in the current Syrian context (according to the Legal Office’s perspective):
This research cannot be viewed in isolation from the profound transformations that Syria witnessed in December 2014 with the fall of the Assad regime and the beginning of a new phase in the country’s history. What was once merely a theoretical subject for academic research may today become a practical working document for legislators and judges who will face the task of rebuilding justice.
Herein lies the role of the Legal Office of the Syrian Future Movement as a specialized body working to:
- Adopt such studies as accredited legal references in formulating the movement’s human rights policies.
- Monitor local, regional, and international developments concerning Syria and issue human rights statements and positions accordingly, just as the researcher did in linking the Saydnaya case to international standards.
- Maintain ongoing coordination with other offices and bodies within the movement to ensure integrated efforts in addressing this sensitive issue and to exchange information and expertise in a way that serves the public interest of human rights work.
As the researcher concludes her thesis with a poignant succinct statement: “If the law is not a guardian of human dignity, then it has lost its very essence.”
This research reminds us that Saydnaya was not merely a prison, but a tool for emptying the law of its substance, and that restoring the law is restoring the state itself.
This is what the Legal Office is committed to, believing that working on this issue is a national and humanitarian duty that demands dedication and devotion, far removed from any personal considerations.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, we hope that this work will find its way into libraries and human rights centers, and that it will serve as a starting point for a serious dialogue on judicial and prison reform in the new Syria.
The Legal Office extends its deepest appreciation to the researcher, Ghazal Ota Bashi, and her supervisors for this valuable contribution, which transforms pain into knowledge, silence into a cause, and the cause into a path toward justice.
“From Silence to Justice” is no longer just the title of a study, but has become an accurate description of the mission of future generations of Syrians: to restore the law to its rightful place and to return dignity to those from whom it has been taken. This is the same vision from which the legal office in the Syrian Future Movement operates, keeping in mind a free and dignified Syrian citizen, in a state of law and institutions, where justice is the only guarantor of the stability and peace of society.
