War crimes likely committed by both sides in Syria coastal violence: UN
Some 1,400 people, mainly civilians, were reported killed during the violence that primarily targeted Alawite communities, and reports of violations have continued, according to the report released on Thursday by the UN Syria Commission of Inquiry.
'The scale and brutality of the violence documented in our report is deeply disturbing,' said Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, chair of the commission, in a statement.
Torture, killings and inhumane acts related to the treatment of the dead were documented by the UN team, which based its research on more than 200 interviews with victims and witnesses, as well as visits to mass grave sites.
'The violations included acts that likely amount to war crimes,' the UN investigators said.
Alawite men were separated from women and children, then led away and killed, the report found.
'Bodies were left in the streets for days, with families prevented from conducting burials in accordance with religious rites, while others were buried in mass graves without proper documentation,' the commission said.
Hospitals became overwhelmed as a result of the killings.
The commission found that even while the interim government's forces sought to stop violations and protect civilians, certain members 'extrajudicially executed, tortured and ill-treated civilians in multiple [Alawite] majority villages and neighbourhoods in a manner that was both widespread and systematic'.
However, the report said the commission 'found no evidence of a governmental policy or plan to carry out such attacks'. It also found that pro-Assad armed groups had committed 'acts that likely amount to crimes, including war crimes' during the violence.
'We call on the interim authorities to continue to pursue accountability for all perpetrators, regardless of affiliation or rank,' Pinheiro said.
'While dozens of alleged perpetrators of violations have reportedly since been arrested, the scale of the violence documented in our report warrants expanding such efforts.'
The incidents in the coastal region were the worst violence in Syria since al-Assad was toppled last December, prompting the interim government to name a fact-finding committee.
The committee in July said it had identified 298 suspects implicated in serious violations during the violence in the country's Alawite heartland.
The committee's report then stated there was no evidence that Syria's military leadership ordered attacks on the Alawite community.
Syrian authorities have accused gunmen loyal to al-Assad of instigating the violence, launching deadly attacks that killed dozens of security personnel.
According to the commission, the deadly attacks by pro-former government fighters began after Syrian interim authorities launched an arrest operation on March 6.
The government committee said 238 members of the army and security forces were killed in the attacks in the provinces of Tartous, Latakia and Hama.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
African courts may pave the way for holding social media giants to account
In April 2025, the Human Rights Court in Kenya issued an unprecedented ruling that it has the jurisdiction to hear a case about harmful content on one of Meta's platforms. The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by Abraham Meareg, the son of an Ethiopian academic who was murdered after he was doxxed and threatened on Facebook, Fisseha Tekle, an Ethiopian human rights activist, who was also doxxed and threatened on Facebook, and Katiba Institute, a Kenyan non-profit that defends constitutionalism. They maintain that Facebook's algorithm design and its content moderation decisions made in Kenya resulted in harm done to two of the claimants, fuelled the conflict in Ethiopia and led to widespread human rights violations within and outside Kenya. The content in question falls outside the protected categories of speech under Article 33 of the Constitution of Kenya and includes propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hate speech and advocacy of hatred that constitutes ethnic incitement, vilification of others, incitement to cause harm and discrimination. Key to the Kenyan case is the question whether Meta, a US-based corporation, can financially benefit from unconstitutional content and whether there is a positive duty on the corporation to take down unconstitutional content that also violates its Community Standards. In affirming the Kenyan court's jurisdiction in the case, the judge was emphatic that the Constitution of Kenya allows a Kenyan court to adjudicate over Meta's acts or omissions regarding content posted on the Facebook platform that may impact the observance of human rights within and outside Kenya. The Kenyan decision signals a paradigm shift towards platform liability where judges determine liability by solely asking the question: Do platform decisions observe and uphold human rights? The ultimate goal of the Bill of Rights, a common feature in African constitutions, is to uphold and protect the inherent dignity of all people. Kenya's Bill of Rights, for example, has as its sole mission to preserve the dignity of individuals and communities and to promote social justice and the realisation of the potential of all human beings. The supremacy of the Constitution also guarantees that, should there be safe harbour provisions in the laws of that country, they would not be a sufficient liability shield for platforms if their business decisions do not ultimately uphold human rights. That a case on algorithm amplification has passed the jurisdiction hearing stage in Kenya is a testament that human rights law and constitutionality offer an opportunity for those who have suffered harm as a result of social media content to seek redress. Up to this point, the idea that a social media platform can be held accountable for content on its platform has been dissuaded by the blanket immunity offered under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, and to a lesser extent, the principle of non-liability in the European Union, with the necessary exceptions detailed in various laws. For example, Section 230 was one of the reasons a district judge in California cited in her ruling to dismiss a case filed by Myanmar refugees in a similar claim that Meta had failed to curb hate speech that fuelled the Rohingya genocide. The aspiration for platform accountability was further dampened by the US Supreme Court decision in Twitter v Taamneh, in which it ruled against plaintiffs who sought to establish that social media platforms carry responsibility for content posted on them. The immunity offered to platforms has come at a high cost, especially for victims of harm in places where platforms do not have physical offices. This is why a decision like the one by the Kenyan courts is a welcome development; it restores hope that victims of platform harm have an alternative route to recourse, one that refocuses human rights into the core of the discussion on platform accountability. The justification for safe harbour provisions like Section 230 has always been to protect 'nascent' technologies from being smothered by the multiplicity of suits. However, by now, the dominant social media platforms are neither nascent nor in need of protection. They have both the monetary and technical wherewithal to prioritise people over profits, but choose not to. As the Kenyan cases cascade through the judicial process, there is cautious optimism that constitutional and human rights law that has taken root in African countries can offer a necessary reprieve for platform arrogance. Mercy Mutemi represents Fisseha Tekle in the case outlined in the article. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Will I make it back alive?': Gaza journalists fear targeting by Israel
Palestinian journalists have long known Gaza to be the most dangerous place on earth for media workers, but Israel's latest attack on a tent housing journalists in Gaza City has left many reeling from shock and fear. Four Al Jazeera staff were among seven people killed in an Israeli drone strike outside al-Shifa Hospital on August 10. The Israeli military has admitted to deliberately targeting the tent after making unsubstantiated accusations that one of those killed, Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif, was a member of Hamas. Israeli attacks in Gaza have killed at least 238 media workers since October 2023, according to Gaza's Government Media Office. This toll is higher than that of World Wars I and II, the Vietnam War, the war in Afghanistan and the Yugoslavia wars combined. Al Jazeera correspondent Hani Mahmoud said, 'Press vests and helmets, once considered a shield, now feel like a target.' 'The fear is constant — and justified,' Mahmoud said. 'Every assignment is accompanied by the same unspoken question: Will [I] make it back alive?' The US-based Committee to Protect Journalists has been among several organisations denouncing Israel's longstanding pattern of accusing journalists of being 'terrorists' without credible proof. 'It is no coincidence that the smears against al-Sharif — who has reported night and day for Al Jazeera since the start of the war — surfaced every time he reported on a major development in the war, most recently the starvation brought about by Israel's refusal to allow sufficient aid into the territory,' CPJ Regional Director Sara Qudah said in the aftermath of Israel's attack. In light of Israel's systematic targeting of journalists, media workers in Gaza are forced to make difficult choices. 'As a mother and a journalist, I go through this mental dissonance almost daily, whether to go to work or stay with my daughters and being afraid of the random shelling of the Israeli occupation army,' Palestinian journalist Sally Thabet told Al Jazeera. Across the street from the ruins of the School of Media Studies at al-Quds Open University in Gaza City, where he used to teach, Hussein Saad has been recovering from an injury he sustained while running to safety. 'The deliberate targeting of Palestinian journalists has a strong effect on the disappearance of the Palestinian story and the disappearance of the media narrative,' he said. Saad argued the Strip was witnessing 'the disappearance of the truth'. While journalists report on mass killings, human suffering and starvation, they also cope with their own losses and deprivation. Photographer and correspondent Amer al-Sultan said hunger was a major challenge. 'I used to go to work, and when I didn't find anything to eat, I would just drink water,' he said. 'I did this for two days. I had to live for two or three days on water. This is one of the most difficult challenges we face amid this war against our people: starvation.' Journalist and film director Hassan Abu Dan said reporters 'live in conditions that are more difficult than the mind can imagine.' 'You live in a tent. You drink water that is not good for drinking. You eat unhealthy food … We are all, as journalists, confused. There is a part of our lives that has been ruined and gone far away,' he said. Al Jazeera's Mahmoud said that despite the psychological trauma and the personal risks, Palestinian journalists continue to do their jobs, 'driven by a belief that documenting the truth is not just a profession, but a duty to their people and history'.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Arab, Islamic countries condemn Netanyahu's ‘Greater Israel' remark
A coalition of Arab and Muslim nations has condemned 'in the strongest terms' statements made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding his vision for a 'Greater Israel'. When interviewer Sharon Gal with the Israeli i24NEWS channel asked Netanyahu if he subscribed to a 'vision' for a 'Greater Israel', Netanyahu said 'absolutely'. Asked during the interview aired on Tuesday if he felt connected to the 'Greater Israel' vision, Netanyahu said: 'Very much.' The 'Greater Israel' concept supported by ultranationalist Israelis is understood to refer to an expansionist vision that lays claim to the occupied West Bank, Gaza, parts of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan. 'These statements represent a grave disregard for, and a blatant and dangerous violation of, the rules of international law and the foundations of stable international relations,' said a joint statement by a coalition of 31 Arab and Islamic countries and the Arab League. 'They also constitute a direct threat to Arab national security, to the sovereignty of states, and to regional and international peace and security,' the statement released on Friday said. The signatories of the statement included the secretaries-general of the League of Arab States, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Gulf Cooperation Council. The Arab and Islamic nations also condemned Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich's announcement on Thursday to push ahead with settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank. The statement said the move is 'a blatant violation of international law and a flagrant assault on the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to realise their independent, sovereign state on the lines of June 4, 1967, with Occupied Jerusalem as its capital'. The statement added that Israel has no sovereignty over occupied Palestinian territory. Smotrich said he would approve thousands of housing units in a long-delayed illegal settlement project in the West Bank, saying the move 'buries the idea of a Palestinian state'. Last September, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling on Israel to end its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories within 12 months. The resolution backed an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – the UN's top court – which found that Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories is unlawful and must end. In February 2024, the ICJ said Israel was 'plausibly committing genocide'. The top UN court has yet to announce its verdict in the case brought by South Africa. Netanyahu and Smotrich made the remarks during Israel's devastating 22-month war on Gaza, which has killed at least 61,827 people and wounded 155,275 people in the enclave. Last week, Israel's Security Cabinet approved Netanyahu's plan to fully occupy Gaza City, and in Tuesday's interview, Netanyahu also revived calls to 'allow' Palestinians to leave Gaza, telling i24NEWS: 'We are not pushing them out, but we are allowing them to leave.' Campaigners said Netanyahu's use of the word 'leave' was a euphemism for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza – home to 2.1 million people, most of whom are refugees and their descendants from the 1948 Nakba when more than 700,000 Palestinians were forced to flee from what became the state of Israel. Past calls to resettle people from Gaza outside the war-battered territory, including from United States President Donald Trump, have sparked fears of forced displacement among Palestinians and condemnation from the international community. In their statement on Saturday, the Islamic countries reiterated their 'rejection and condemnation of Israel's crimes of aggression, genocide, and ethnic cleansing' in Gaza and highlighted the need for a ceasefire in the enclave while 'ensuring unconditional access to humanitarian aid to halt the systematic starvation policy used by Israel as a weapon of genocide'. They also reaffirmed their 'complete and absolute rejection of the displacement of the Palestinian people in any form and under any pretext' and called on the international community to pressure Israel to halt its aggression and fully withdraw from the Gaza Strip.
