Based on in-depth interviews, "'He who did wrong should be accountable': Syrian Perspectives on Transitional Justice" found that Syrians—even though split into anti- and pro-Assad regime camps—evinced "a surprising degree of consensus regarding transitional justice. "

The report was presented January 29 at a meeting held at the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP). Steven Heydemann, vice president of the Institute's Center for Applied Research on Conflict and head of its Syria program, said the study shows that even amid the country's upheaval, Syrians "are thinking about the future" in ways that support alternatives to responding "with vengeance" when the conflict eventually subsides.

The conflict, which is nearly three years old, has killed more than 130,000 people, displaced some 6.5 million internally and pushed 2.2 million into other countries.

The attitudes revealed through the interviews deserve the attention of parties to the Syrian peace talks this week in Geneva, said Heydemann. "If they want to arrive at a sustainable peace, they will have to take those views into consideration." Those talks brought Assad regime and opposition representatives together for the first time in face-to-face meetings.  However, the first round of those talks adjourned on January 31 in a deadlock. Mediation to secure humanitarian access to some of the Syrians ensnared in the fighting, particularly in the city of Homs, was not successful.

Although transitional justice issues received little or no attention at the Geneva talks, the new research suggests within Syria there is "a sustainable consensus" behind both a negotiated resolution to the conflict and accountability for both sides, according to Mohammad Al Abdallah, SJAC's executive director. "Both sides are concerned about transitional justice," he said. He argued that "the time is ripe" to discuss how it can play a role in any future peace settlement.

The 46 interviews were conducted in September and October in Syria—in several cities and among internally displaced people—as well as among refugees who have fled the fighting for neighboring countries. The interviewees were selected to reflect a cross-section of Syrians from various religious orientations, political views, war experiences, education and locations.

That specialized methodology was used earlier in another dangerous conflict zone (Libya), said Craig Charney, who heads the survey research firm that conducted the interviews, and co-authored the report with Christine Quirk. "You cannot go around taking a poll" in such hazardous situations, Charney said, and many of the interviewees showed considerable fear of retribution for offering their opinions, including one who said, "Please, please, please don't tell anyone my identity."

Among the report's key findings:

• Syrians are "deeply negative" about the country's direction, the war has "touched everyone" and "neither side expects the conflict to end soon."
• Many regime opponents would "accept exile for President [Bashar] Assad as part of a negotiated end to the violence." However, those who reject that want him held accountable, and his supporters oppose exile even as part of a settlement.
• Many respondents worry about Syria's "culture of revenge" and few are willing to "forgive and forget."
• Nearly all say that "rule of law should be paramount in post-war Syria."
• Trials are the most popular approach to dealing with human rights violators, though many respondents are also receptive to a truth commission to gather evidence and deal with compensation for wrongs.  Syrians interviewed expressed negative responses to the term "reconciliation."
• Views of Assad are "extremely polarized" and key parts of the armed opposition received reviews ranging from mixed to largely negative.

Though desires for future justice are strong, Abdallah said, whatever mechanisms are agreed to "will end up dissatisfying a good portion of the country." Thus, he said, there is a "need to manage expectations."

Balkees Jarrah, a counsel at the International Justice Program of Human Rights Watch (HRW), called the Syrian violence "a situation that cries out for justice" and urged that any future settlement not allow impunity for suspects in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Summarizing 20 years of HRW research, Jarrah said, "The precedent of impunity gave the would-be criminals no reason to change their behavior."

With justice options unavailable for now within Syria, HRW has called on the U.N. Security Council to approve a formal Syrian "referral" to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, giving the ICC international legal jurisdiction to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity and seek indictments and prosecutions. According to a report that HRW released in December, 64 countries have called for an ICC referral, though the United States and China have not publicly expressed support for it and Russia is opposed.

Transitional justice measures, Jarrah argued, cannot "be seen as a substitute for criminal prosecutions."

Andrew Tabler, a Syria specialist and senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, agreed that some transitional justice mechanisms should be part of Syria's post-conflict future. But the policy priority of the Obama administration and others has been on finding a way for Assad to step aside, so the justice goal "ran up against real politics." Pushing for an ICC referral and trials now, he said, would make "more complicated an already complicated situation."

Explore further

• USIP and the FP Group held the first PeaceGame on December 9. Topic: Syria's conflict
• Institute specialists prepared Syria background papers for the PeaceGame
• USIP's Peace Brief series on sectarianism in the Middle East
• USIP's "The Day After" project
• USIP's three-part book series "Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes"
• A Peace Brief on rule-of-law challenges in the Middle East and North Africa