Why was Syria’s former President sentenced to death | Explained

Bashar al-Assad, who ruled Syria for more than two decades before being forced to flee amid a civil war in 2024 and ending the Assad-era after five decades, has been sentenced to death along with his brother Maher al-Assad, who commanded the notorious ‘fourth division’ of the military and was considered the regime’s top security official, cousin Atef Najib, and six others.

While Najib is currently being held in Syria and was present for trials and ruling, the other eight were sentenced in absentia, with the Assad brothers living under Russian asylum. While extradition of those sentenced in absentia and imposition of the sentences might be an arduous task for the present government under Ahmad al-Shaara, the former al-Qaeda operative with links to the Islamic State who led the quick movement against the Assad regime as Abu Muhammad al-Jolani in 2024 before taking over, the sentencing will act as a tool of transition for the country.

The judicial proceedings against the Assad brothers and their loyalists were the results of the efforts by the National Commission for Transitional Justice (NCTJ) set up by Mr. Shaara in May 2025 to investigate serious human right abuses during the “previous regime” and hold those responsible to account.

The Fourth Criminal Court in Damascus, presided over by Judge Fakhr al-Din al-Aryan, began trial of the ousted leader and others in April this year and convicted him, his brother, cousin, and the six others of murder, torture, unlawful depravation of liberty, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The charges go back to the crackdown on the Daara uprising of 2011, where dissatisfaction over authoritarian regime spilled out onto the streets along with the Arab Spring sweeping West Asia. The protests in Syria were sparked by the detention and alleged torture of teenagers who drew anti-Assad graffiti on walls in Daraa. Demonstrations against this detention were met with a crackdown which ignited nationwide movements and later instability which opened the avenues for a civil war.

The court heard witnesses who were minors at the time recall torture including beating, electric shocks, suspension, and nail removal, with Najib, who was then the head of political security in Daraa, personally interrogating some. The court held the ousted leader Assad responsible for a “joint criminal project”, saying that as President throughout the period covered by the case, including the years-long civil war that followed shortly after the uprising, he had power over state institutions while the crackdown and other crimes took place. The former President was convicted specifically for intentional murder of multiple people, intentional killing of children under 15, intentional killing accompanied by torture and brutality, and incitement to intentional murder on multiple occasions.

With the two Assad brothers living in Russia, which has previously denied extradition request by the Shaara administration since it was a strong Syrian ally during the previous regime and helped it in the civil war against U.S. backed Kurdish group Syrian Democratic Forces and other militias, the court and the administration will find it hard to impose the sentence. However, the court has ordered arrest warrants against the “fugitives”, directing authorities to take necessary measures for their international prosecution. Following this, Syria’s Deputy Justice Minister Mustafa al-Qassem on Wednesday announced the formation of a committee to seek the extradition of those convicted, saying that the panel would coordinate with Interpol to secure their handover.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International expressed concerns over the judicial proceedings, stressing shortly after the verdict was issued that trials and death sentences in absentia are incompatible with international standards of fair-trial guarantees. The sentencing of the Assad brothers and others followed the recent precedent set by Bangladesh, whose ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was similarly sentenced to death in absentia for crimes against humanity by the countries International Crimes Tribunal in November last year.

Reacting to the proceedings in Syria, Amnesty noted that prosecuting those responsible for grave violations of human rights was key to achieve justice, but said that trials in absentia should be abolished if the Sharaa government wanted to “truly turn the page on the horrors of the past”. However, Syria’s Justice Ministry pushed back against the organisation’s criticism, saying its statement “does not accurately reflect the nature of the judicial procedures followed in these cases or the safeguards guaranteed to litigants under Syrian law”.