Image source: wikimedia
The Atlantic Council Research Center published an article by legal experts and lawyers Jeanne Sulzer and Clémence Witt.
The article spots the light on the historic decision of Paris Court of Appeal issued on June 26, 2024, in which it supported the arrest warrant issued by French judges in November 2023 against both Bashar and Maher al-Assad, and two other high-ranking officers, for targeting Eastern Ghouta with chemical weapons in 2013, killing about 1,400 civilians and injuring about 6,000 others.
It indicates that the French court established the arrest warrant against Bashar al-Assad, a legal pattern that seniors of state cannot enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for serious crimes such as the use of chemical weapons against civilians, classified as war crimes against humanity.
Immunity in International Law
Personal immunity is considered as an international legal principle that grants some senior officials such as heads of state immunity from prosecution. Historically, this immunity has extended to all acts performed by officials during their duration. However, questions arise about the “absoluteness” of this immunity, particularly in cases of major international crimes such as crimes against humanity.
Why did France deactivate Bashar al-Assad’s immunity?
The two legal experts explained that the decision of the French Court of Appeal to deactivate the immunity of Bashar al-Assad was based on the court’s conviction that personal immunity does not include any longer acts that severely violate international law.
It is said in the article that according to the French Court, the use of chemical weapons against civilians was never an official function of the head of state in the framework of his self-determining duties, but rather an act that constituted a scandalous violation of peremptory norms of international law, such as the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons.
It is explained in the article that the court ruled that immunity ratione personae aims to protect officials in the performance of their diplomatic and sovereign functions, such as State representing in international fields, while aggressive actions and war crimes, such as the use of chemical weapons, go beyond this framework, and the head of state cannot manipulate and mis-use his personal immunity to evade accountability for such crimes.
“It is absolutely obvious that Syria will not prosecute Bashar al-Assad for these crimes, and that it will never waive personal immunity to its president, and since there are no international courts that have jurisdiction, because Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute, it must be said that the arrest warrant issued against Bashar al-Assad is not tainted by any invalidity,” the experts added.
Furthermore, the “Syrian judicial authorities” have not taken any steps towards prosecuting the criminals of the chemical attacks, and it is obvious that Bashar al-Assad does not have a clear presidential term, particularly since he held the position for twenty-four years, along with the absence of the role of a competent international court. In addition to the rejection of all attempts at referring the case to the International Criminal Court.
The Court in Paris ensured, through the arrest warrant for Bashar al-Assad, that immunity does not mean impunity, and provided a pathway for victims to seek truth and justice.
Decision Impacts and the Future of Accountability
The Court’s decision represents a daring step towards ending up the idea of absolute immunity, which heads of State have long exploited to escape from a crucial punishment for international crimes, as through this ruling, France sent a strong message that the use of chemical weapons and serious international crimes cannot be justified by the functions of the sovereign State, and that those responsible for these crimes must face justice.
The lawyers indicate that the final decision expected from the French Court of Cassation, France’s Supreme Court, will be crucial in determining and will have a significant impact on international law and accountability efforts for serious international crimes.
Reference: Atlantic Council
The Atlantic Council is a nonprofit research center and think tank based in Washington, D.C., United States. It focuses on international policy, security, and global affairs. Founded in 1961, its mission is to promote transatlantic cooperation, particularly between the United States and Europe, in areas such as international security, foreign policy, and economics.
The article’s authors:
- Jeanne Sulzer: A lawyer at the Paris Bar and a counsel listed with the International Criminal Court. She founded the legal office “Impact Litigation” and represents victims of international crimes, including the case of the chemical attacks in Syria in 2013 in France.
- Clémence Witt: A criminal lawyer registered with both the Paris and Barcelona Bars. She teaches criminal law and procedure at the Institute of Political Studies at Sciences Po University in Paris.
assad_regime chemical_attack chemical_weapons France
