Naming names in Syria

Human rights reports make for depressing reading. Filled with accounts of cruelty, they can inspire despair for the human condition.

But while I have read many such reports over the years, I cannot recall one as packed with horror as the one recently published by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic.

The commission, established in 2011 by the United Nations Human Rights Council, was denied access to Syria; it based its findings on 415 interviews, supplemented by photographs, video recordings, satellite images and medical records.

The crimes it documents include severe harm to civilians by Russian air strikes in support of the Syrian government, the “targeting of hospitals, medical personnel and transport” and “continued, deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on schools”.

The authors also found that Daesh had destroyed Syrian cultural heritage sites and sexually enslaved thousands of Yazidi women and girls, and that the Syrian government and its Lebanese ally, Hizbollah, carried out systematic attacks on Sunnis, the country’s largest religious community, and used sieges to starve civilians.

This is the commission’s 11th report  and, as is customary, it concludes with a long list of recommendations, which, unfortunately, are unlikely to be implemented any time soon.

One proposal, however, is worth highlighting.

The commission calls for “referring the situation to justice, possibly to the International Criminal Court or an ad hoc tribunal, bearing in mind that, in the context of the Syrian Arab Republic, only the [UN] Security Council is competent to refer the situation”.

In this case, however, the Security Council cannot be relied upon to serve the cause of justice.

Russia, one of its five permanent members, is allied with the Syrian government, the author of the greatest number of abuses, and Russia itself has bombed many medical facilities.

The Kremlin is sure to use its veto power to block attempts to bring perpetrators to justice.

If accountability is to be had, it will have to come via a different channel.

Four years ago, I called on the Arab League to establish a criminal tribunal for Syria.

Severe abuses had already taken place, but it was clear even then that Russia would block action by the Security Council.

I believed a court created by the Arab League would enjoy the legitimacy — a crucial element for any such body — to conduct war-crimes trials.

My proposal fell on deaf ears. I suspect some Arab governments feared that a court for Syria might set a precedent that would lead to efforts at accountability for crimes committed elsewhere in the region.

And given the atrocities being carried out in the war in Yemen and the human rights violations committed by repressive regimes like that of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, such an effort would be unpopular, to say the least.

And yet, if a war crimes tribunal for Syria cannot be created, a more limited form of accountability can be sought.

The UN Commission of Inquiry has collected information identifying some of those responsible for the crimes it has investigated, but it has not made it public.

The names of those responsible should be disclosed, either by the commission, or by another body created by the UN Human Rights Council.

Those to be named should be notified and given a chance to refute the findings. If they fail to respond, or if their responses are not persuasive, their names and the crimes attributed to them should be made public.

The Human Rights Council could act on its own. Its actions are not subject to a veto by one or more of the Security Council’s permanent members.

There is ample precedent for such an effort.

Before the UN established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, it created a commission of experts, which did not hold trials, but conducted investigations and publicly identified those it held responsible.

Similarly, truth commissions have been established in more than 40 countries, sometimes under UN auspices.

And though they have not conducted trials, most — such as the commission established by the UN for El Salvador after its civil war — have provided the names of those who committed severe abuses.

Simply stigmatising those responsible for war crimes would fall far short of imposing criminal penalties. But it would, at least, provide a measure of accountability. And it would likely result in further measures.

Knowing who committed particular crimes could fuel demand to create a tribunal to bring perpetrators to justice. And, just as important, shining a light on those who violate human rights could deter those who do not want to be identified as criminals from carrying out similar actions in the future.a

The writer, president emeritus of the Open Society Foundations and a founder of Human Rights Watch, is the author of “The International Human Rights Movement: A History”. ©Project Syndicate, 2016. www.project-syndicate.org