Damascus sentences Assad to death, but he stays protected in Moscow

A court in Damascus has sentenced former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and seven other figures of his regime to death for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The charges cover systematically practised torture, the intentional killing of children under fifteen, and premeditated murder.

Those convicted include the former president's brother, Maher al-Assad, former defence minister Fahd al-Freij and military intelligence chief Luay al-Ali. Only one defendant was physically present: Atif Najib, who in 2011 headed political security in Daraa and ordered the torture of the teenagers arrested for writing slogans against the regime. That case was the spark of the uprising.

In practical terms the verdict remains largely symbolic. Assad has lived in Moscow under Russian protection since December 2024, when the Kremlin granted him asylum. His brother Maher's situation is less clear: unverified reports place him near the Russian capital since 2025, but Russia has never made an official statement about him.

The Syrian justice ministry has indicated that the convictions will go to the court of cassation within thirty days. That is the stage which will show whether such trials hold up before a higher instance, and on what reasoning.

A test for the new authorities

The conflict that opened with the protests of 2011 caused more than half a million deaths and forced millions of people from their homes. Reconstructing that chain of responsibility in a courtroom is a task no national judiciary takes on in easy conditions.

Human Rights Watch called the proceedings against Najib a test of the Syrian authorities' capacity to deliver credible justice for abuses committed under the old regime. The organisation starts from an observation that applies to the new government too: several observers report that violence and arbitrary arrests have not stopped with the change of power.

Two separate questions therefore remain. The first is whether trials in absentia can have any concrete effect without the handover of the defendants, which no one has so far formally requested from Moscow. The second is whether the court judging the past will apply the same standards to the present.