Selective justice for peace is a gamble Syria can’t afford

Public outrage

Rather than defusing tensions, the press conference ignited a firestorm of public backlash. Journalists in attendance challenged Soufan directly, accusing him of whitewashing war criminals by recasting them as agents of peace. His narrative, they argued, recycled the authoritarian playbook: backroom deals, selective forgiveness, and the abandonment of accountability in favour of fragile political optics.

The backlash extended far beyond the press room. On social media, Syrians flooded platforms with photos, videos, and documents implicating some of the released officers—especially Saqr—in atrocities. "Partners in peacebuilding," as Soufan called them, were known to the public as architects of massacres.

Civil society organisations, legal experts, and human rights groups quickly joined the condemnation. Lawyers argued that the Civil Peace Committee had overstepped its bounds: only a court—not a politically appointed body—has the authority to determine guilt or innocence. Human rights organisations warned that these actions send a devastating message: that accountability is flexible, justice is negotiable, and impunity can be sanctioned if it suits the political moment.

Protest calls spread rapidly across cities like Damascus and Aleppo, uniting under the slogan "No Peace Without Accountability." Survivors, activists, and everyday citizens rejected the notion that lasting peace can be built by reintegrating known perpetrators without a process grounded in truth and justice.

Structural flaws

Soufan's comments also revealed serious structural flaws in the government's approach to transitional justice. Chief among them is a lack of transparency. There has been no clear explanation of who qualifies for release, what legal criteria are applied, or whether victims are consulted—if at all. Soufan claimed that these individuals were not found guilty, yet no formal trials were held, no public hearings were conducted, and no evidence was openly reviewed. This absence of due process casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of the decisions being made.

Equally troubling is the logic underpinning the informal amnesties granted to figures like Fadi Saqr. These ad hoc decisions severely undermine the credibility of Syria's emerging justice institutions. When individuals with documented involvement in mass violence are praised rather than prosecuted, the distinction between war criminal and peacebuilder collapses. This not only dishonours the memory of victims but also signals that justice is secondary to political utility.

Rather than stabilising the country, the government's current approach to justice is heightening instability. By protecting individuals accused of grave abuses without subjecting them to legal examination, the state is broadcasting a dangerous message: that justice is negotiable, and impunity is a viable policy tool. This not only undermines the rule of law, but it also sets the stage for renewed cycles of violence.

Risks of impunity

The fallout is already visible. Acts of vigilante justice are on the rise, as communities lose faith in official mechanisms of accountability. In Deir ez-Zor, a group of armed men released a video warning they would take matters into their own hands if former regime loyalists were not brought to justice. In Haritan, a town north of Aleppo, residents reportedly issued a 24-hour ultimatum for pro-Assad families to leave or face retribution. According to local sources, these actions stem from mounting frustration with the government's selective and opaque handling of justice.

Even more worrying, a surge in extrajudicial killings has been reported. In Daraa and Homs alone, over a dozen former regime figures were allegedly assassinated in the past week. The state's refusal to address past crimes openly and fairly is not containing unrest—it is provoking dangerous vigilante responses that could spiral out of control.

False choice

In defending the committee's approach, Soufan argued that stability cannot be achieved through justice alone, warning that a rushed pursuit of accountability could destabilise Syria. He insisted that national stability must come first. But this framing presents a false choice. Justice and peace are not mutually exclusive—in fact, sustainable peace is impossible without justice. Transitional justice exists precisely to strike a balance between accountability and reconciliation, rather than justifying impunity under the guise of pragmatism.

What the committee—and the broader authorities—seem to underestimate is that prioritising quick political gains by cooperating with known perpetrators may offer temporary calm, but it risks triggering far greater instability. As recent events show, this approach is already fueling a dangerous rise in vigilante justice and revenge killings. Peace built on unaddressed trauma and unpunished crimes will not hold.

Syria is not the first nation to emerge from a brutal armed conflict. Interim President al-Sharaa has expressed a strong desire to avoid the sectarian power-sharing systems of Lebanon and Iraq. While that concern is valid, it's only one lesson to take from those countries. Both Lebanon and Iraq attempted to stabilise by forging elite pacts with warlords and former combatants. In both cases, impunity was institutionalised, justice was sidelined, and long-term political stability remained out of reach.

The transitional government must take a different path. Syria cannot be rebuilt by reabsorbing the architects of past violence into positions of power. Doing so not only dishonors the victims—it undermines the foundations of the new state.

Justice is not a threat to peace. It is the pathway to it. Any political settlement that does not place truth, justice, and dignity for victims at its core is not a solution—it's a delay of the next crisis. Syria deserves better than opaque deals and recycled warlords. It deserves a future grounded in law, accountability, and the voices of those who have endured the worst.

The equation is simple: there can be no real peace, no path to recovery, and no national reconciliation without justice.