Two legal fronts: the Damascus judgment and a challenge to ICC sanctions
A Damascus court sentenced Bashar al-Assad to death in absentia, while four US rights groups challenged ICC sanctions. In both cases, the distance between legal action and implementation matters.
Geopolitics··Night
The judgment in absentia in Damascus
The Fourth Criminal Court in Damascus convicted ousted president Bashar al-Assad of premeditated murder, torture and crimes against humanity and sentenced him to death in absentia. His brother Maher al-Assad received the same sentence in absentia. Their cousin Atef Najib, the former head of political security in Deraa province, was present in the courtroom in a prisoner's uniform. Judge Fakhr al-Din al-Aryan said witness testimony established Bashar al-Assad as the highest decision-maker and showed that he used state institutions to facilitate the crimes. Fahd al-Freij and Louay al-Ali were also sentenced in absentia, and the proceedings were broadcast on state television. Bashar and Maher al-Assad have lived in Russia since December 2024. Syria's new authorities have asked Moscow to extradite them, but that request has not produced their return; according to Al Jazeera's report, the decision remains a domestic judgment that cannot be carried out while the brothers stay abroad.[1]
The suit against ICC sanctions
In the United States, the American Friends Service Committee, the Centre for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch and the Open Society Institute filed suit on Tuesday against the February 2025 executive order authorising sanctions on ICC officials, judges and prosecutors. The groups argue that the order exceeds presidential authority and rests on a claimed national emergency with no factual basis. According to the plaintiffs, the sanctions make them curtail human rights and legal work, including representing victims of war crimes, making submissions to the court and working with Palestinian rights organisations. They contend that this result violates free speech and due process. Joyce Ajlouny, general-secretary of the American Friends Service Committee, said the order was intended to intimidate human rights defenders and deter advocacy. Al Jazeera reported that DAWN and TAAG had previously filed separate suits against the same order. The new case therefore puts both the legal basis of the sanctions policy and its alleged effect on rights work before US courts.[2]
The distance between legal action and implementation
The cases belong to different legal systems, involve different allegations and follow different procedures. In Damascus, a court issued a judgment, yet the report explicitly says it cannot be carried out while Bashar and Maher al-Assad remain in Russia. The US rights groups filed a different kind of action, asking a court to review the executive order's legality in terms of presidential power and protected rights. What places the developments alongside each other is a shared limit: another authority or an exercise of state power is required before the legal action produces a practical result. In the Damascus case, that requirement is visible in the extradition request sent to Moscow. In the ICC sanctions suit, the outcome depends on a US judicial assessment that has yet to be announced. The comparison does not show the proceedings moving toward the same outcome. The Damascus decision is reported as a final domestic criminal sentence, while the US case is a newly filed challenge. In both, authority, reach and implementation still shape what the legal step can accomplish in practice.[1], [2]
