Damascus, Sept. 20 (SANA) Restoring confiscated property, lifting legal restrictions and correcting official records are among the challenges facing Syria as it begins to unwind the consequences of more than 90,000 cases handled by the now-abolished Anti-Terrorism Court.
The legislation goes beyond abolishing the court itself, setting out mechanisms to address the effects of its rulings through specialized judicial committees, while legal experts say implementation will determine how far the process succeeds in restoring rights and providing redress to those affected.
From abolishing the court to restoring rights
The People’s Assembly unanimously approved the bill abolishing the Anti-Terrorism Court during the third session of its first extraordinary sitting. The measure also nullifies the legal consequences of the court’s rulings and assigns the Supreme Judicial Council responsibility for addressing them.
Abdul Nasser Houshan, head of the People’s Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Committee, said the legislation provides for specialized judicial committees under the Supreme Judicial Council to address those consequences, including restoring confiscated property.
The committees will also close pending cases or refer them to the competent judicial authorities, depending on the circumstances.
The legislation recognizes as valid and enforceable decisions already issued by the Supreme Judicial Council in this regard before the law enters into force.
It also exempts people recovering confiscated property from taxes, fees and costs arising from the transfer of ownership. The exemptions cover property confiscated under rulings issued by the Anti-Terrorism Court, military field courts or military courts between March 15, 2011, and December 8, 2024.
90,000 cases and thousands of property seizures
The scale of the task is reflected in the number of cases and property measures linked to the court.
Established under Law No. 22 of 2012, the Anti-Terrorism Court was empowered to hear cases against civilians and military personnel under an exceptional legal framework that drew criticism over trial guarantees and the right to a defense.
Syrian Network for Human Rights Director Fadel Abdulghany told SANA that, as of October 2020, the network had documented at least 10,767 people prosecuted before the court, approximately 90,560 cases and 3,970 instances of property seizure.
He said the network also documented at least 40,602 seizure and confiscation orders between 2012 and 2024, affecting approximately 320,000 citizens within the broader property seizure and confiscation system established by the ousted regime.
Abdulghany said Article 7 of Law No. 22 allowed the court to disregard procedural rules stipulated in legislation then in force during prosecution and trial.
He said the network documented reliance on security reports and confessions extracted under torture, restrictions on the right to a defense, and a lack of transparency in the publication of rulings and the criteria on which they were based.
Abolition alone does not erase the consequences
The central challenge is the distinction between abolishing the institution and undoing the legal, financial and administrative consequences accumulated through years of rulings.
Abdulghany said repealing the law would not automatically erase those consequences. He called for measures including ending detentions based solely on the court’s rulings, canceling arrest warrants and travel bans, and correcting criminal, employment, pension and civil records.
He also called for allowing the families of deceased and forcibly disappeared people to seek the annulment of rulings and restoration of rights, alongside mechanisms for compensation and rehabilitation.
That means implementation could extend well beyond property restitution, potentially affecting an individual’s legal status, employment, pension rights, freedom of movement and official records.
Reviewing rulings and judicial conduct
Efforts to address the court’s legacy began before the legislation abolishing it was approved.
In February 2025, the Justice Ministry referred 87 judges who had served in the court’s public prosecution, investigation, criminal court and Court of Cassation departments to the Judicial Inspection Department for investigations into their conduct since the court was established.
On April 17, 2025, the ministry formed a specialized judicial committee to examine rulings and procedures issued by the Anti-Terrorism Court and other exceptional courts, assess their legality and compatibility with legal and constitutional guarantees, and submit periodic reports to the Supreme Judicial Council.
Presidential Decree No. 88 was issued on June 12, 2025, implementing the dismissal of 67 judges who had previously worked in anti-terrorism courts after judicial inspection investigations and disciplinary proceedings were completed.
According to the Justice Ministry, investigations involving 10 judges were closed, while disciplinary proceedings against nine others remained ongoing.
In August 2025, the ministry called on people harmed by the conduct of the court’s judges to submit complaints and evidence to the investigating judge appointed by the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation as part of an investigation into practices during their tenure.
Military field courts leave another legal legacy
The Anti-Terrorism Court is not the only exceptional judicial institution whose previous rulings raise questions over restoring rights.
Military field courts were established under Legislative Decree No. 109 of 1968 and abolished under Legislative Decree No. 32 of 2023, with pending cases transferred to the military judiciary.
According to figures cited in a UN document based on human rights documentation, the courts issued death sentences against 14,843 people between March 2011 and August 2023. Of those sentences, 7,872 were carried out, including against 114 children and 26 women.
At least 24,047 forcibly disappeared people were also referred to the courts during the same period, including 98 children and 39 women, while their fate remains unknown.
The United Nations said abolishing the military field courts in 2023 did not adequately resolve the issue of their previous rulings. It also raised questions over preserving their archives and records and disclosing the fate of people against whom rulings had been issued.
According to UN documents, death sentences issued by the courts were linked to executions carried out in detention facilities, including Sednaya Prison.
The experience underscores a broader challenge: abolishing an exceptional court does not by itself settle the legal and humanitarian consequences of decisions issued during its existence.
From legislation to tangible results
For legal experts, the next phase will be measured less by the abolition itself than by what happens to the people and property affected by the court’s rulings.
Lawyer and legal researcher Firas Haj Yehia told SANA that the law’s significance extends beyond abolishing the court to nullifying the consequences of its rulings, restoring property and exempting owners from fees and taxes.
He said its success would depend on the speed of implementation, transparency in the work of the judicial committees and guarantees of reparation within the transitional justice process.
Haj Yehia said addressing the consequences should cover all resulting legal effects, particularly those involving official records, legal restrictions, assets and civil rights, so that abolishing the court produces tangible results for those affected.
Radeef Mustafa, director of the Accountability Department at the National Commission for Transitional Justice, said abolishing exceptional courts and addressing the consequences of their rulings form part of the transitional justice process, including redressing grievances and delivering justice to victims.
He said dealing with the legacy requires an integrated institutional process linking the review of rulings, restoration of rights and accountability for those responsible for violations.
Judicial documents and case files should also be preserved for use in transitional justice and accountability proceedings, Mustafa added.
The challenge now is therefore one of implementation: reviewing thousands of cases, determining which legal consequences remain in force and providing mechanisms through which affected people or their families can recover property and other rights.
How quickly and transparently the Supreme Judicial Council and specialized committees carry out that work will determine how far abolishing the Anti-Terrorism Court translates from a legislative act into tangible changes for those affected by its rulings.
N.J/MF
