Legal and human rights experts have affirmed that reparations in Syria represent one of the fundamental paths to transitional justice, encompassing the uncovering of truth, restoration of rights and property, medical and psychological rehabilitation, and rehabilitation of victims of crimes committed by the ousted regime. They emphasized the necessity of an integrated legal and institutional system that responds to the needs of those affected according to clear and fair standards.
Fadel Abdul Ghani, director of the Syrian Network for Human Rights, clarified that legally, reparations are the right of victims to obtain appropriate and effective measures to address damages resulting from violations and to restore their rights and dignity as much as possible. He noted that these measures must be commensurate with the gravity of the violation and its effects, and must take into account the differing needs of those affected.
Abdul Ghani explained that financial compensation constitutes one form of reparations, but does not encompass its comprehensive concept, which includes the return of rights, rehabilitation, uncovering the truth, acknowledgment of violations, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition. He cited the families of the forcibly disappeared as an example, stating that financial compensation alone is insufficient without continuing the search for the fate of their children and uncovering the truth. Similarly, torture survivors require treatment and rehabilitation alongside compensation.
This perspective aligns with what legal expert Raghib Diab emphasized regarding the necessity of determining the nature of actual damage and its relationship to the violation when considering reparations claims. He clarified that the concerned categories include victims of arbitrary detention and torture, forced disappearance, families of the killed and missing, internally displaced and forcibly displaced persons, returning refugees, and those affected by the loss of homes, land, and livelihoods, as well as children, persons with disabilities, and the most vulnerable groups.
Diab pointed out that displacement or asylum alone does not necessarily entitle one to specific compensation, and that property-related claims require distinguishing between the restoration of original ownership, compensation for damage, and housing or humanitarian assistance. He highlighted the importance of considering the causal relationship between the violation and the damage, its size and duration, and the degree of vulnerability and need, while ensuring equality and non-discrimination and providing alternative means of proof when official documents are missing.
In the context of translating these rights into practical procedures, legal expert Suleiman Qarfa stressed the importance of integrating institutions concerned with reparations. He explained that recovery centers are expected to provide initial assessment of victims' needs, psychological and social support, and legal counseling. The National Victims Registry, meanwhile, manages information regarding persons, violations, and damages after verification, while the Reparations Fund secures the necessary funding to implement compensation and reparations programs.
Qarfa noted that the effectiveness of these institutions is linked to their operation within a single system; recovery centers determine the needs of those affected and direct them to appropriate services, the National Registry contributes to documenting and evaluating cases, while competent authorities make decisions based on published legal standards. The Fund is responsible for providing the necessary resources for implementation.
Expert Qarfa considered that the ability of those affected to know their rights, submit their claims, and obtain a reasoned decision within a reasonable period, with the opportunity to appeal, represents a fundamental criterion for the success of the system. Regarding the forms of reparations, Abdul Ghani clarified that international standards define five main integrated forms: restitution, financial compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition.
These include the restoration of property and civil and functional rights, correction of records, compensation for assessable material and moral losses, provision of treatment, psychological and social support, and vocational rehabilitation, alongside uncovering the truth and reviewing practices and legislation that contributed to the occurrence of violations. Abdul Ghani emphasized that victim participation in determining reparations priorities is essential, as the needs of a missing person's family differ from those of a torture survivor or a displaced person who has lost their home and livelihood.
For his part, Diab identified several obstacles that may prevent those affected from obtaining their rights, most notably the difficulty of proving violations and damages due to the loss or destruction of documents, difficulty accessing information and competent authorities, and the complexities of restoring property and settling real estate disputes. Diab stressed the necessity of adopting clear rules for determining eligibility, evaluating damages, and identifying funding sources, as well as providing accessible appeal procedures and not automatically rejecting claims due to the absence of documents whenever the facts can be verified through reliable alternative evidence.
In the legal framework, Abdul Ghani pointed out that victims' right to reparations is based on rules in international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture, which recognize effective remedies, compensation, and rehabilitation. Abdul Ghani stressed the necessity of separating reparations from criminal accountability while ensuring their integration, so that victims are not deprived of treatment and support while awaiting the conclusion of trials, nor is their receipt of reparations used as an excuse to close investigations or exempt officials from accountability.
For his part, Expert Qarfa viewed reparations not merely as a compensatory measure, but as an institutional, ethical, and legal responsibility linked to restoring citizens' trust in state institutions and consolidating the rule of law. He affirmed that the transparency, fairness, and clarity of eligibility criteria form the fundamental pillars for vindicating those affected and alleviating the burdens left by violations. The three experts agree that the success of reparations in Syria requires transitioning from documenting rights to building implementable mechanisms that combine documentation, evaluation, financing, rehabilitation, and restoration of rights, ensuring victim participation and protection, thereby making justice a sustainable process that responds to the diversity of damages and the needs of those affected.
Source: Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA)
Comments (0)