France tries Syrian Islamist rebel ex-spokesman on war crime charges
A Syrian Islamist rebel ex-spokesman is to go on trial in France on Tuesday under the principle of universal jurisdiction, accused of complicity in war crimes during Syria's civil war.
French authorities arrested Majdi Nema, now 36, in the southern city of Marseille in 2020, after he travelled to the country on a student exchange programme.
He was detained and charged under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows states to prosecute suspects accused of serious crimes regardless of where they were committed.
This is the first time that crimes committed in Syria's civil war have been tried in France under the universal jurisdiction.
Nema -- better known by his nom-de-guerre of Islam Alloush -- has been charged with complicity in war crimes between 2013 and 2016, when he was spokesman for a Syrian Islamist rebel group called Jaish al-Islam.
However, Nema has said he only had a "limited role" in the armed opposition group that held sway in the rebel-held suburbs of Damascus during that period.
Jaish al-Islam was one of the main opposition groups fighting Bashar al-Assad's government before Islamist-led fighters toppled him in December but it has also been accused of terrorising civilians in areas it controlled.
Nema, who faces up to 20 years in jail if found guilty, has in particular been accused of helping recruit children and teenagers to fight for the group.
His arrest came after rights groups, including the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), filed a criminal complaint in France in 2019 against members of Jaish al-Islam for their alleged crimes.
It was the FIDH that discovered Nema was in France during research into Jaish al-Islam's hierarchy and informed the French authorities.
Marc Bailly, a lawyer for the FIDH and some civil parties in the trial that runs to May 27, said the case would be "the opportunity to shed light on all the complexity of the Syrian conflict, which did not just involve regime crimes".
- Disappearances -
Born in 1988, Nema was a captain in the Syrian armed forces before defecting in 2012 and joining the group that would in 2013 become known as Jaish al-Islam.
He told investigators that he left Eastern Ghouta in May 2013 and crossed the border to Turkey, where he worked as the group's spokesman, before leaving the group in 2016.
He has cited his presence in Turkey as part of his defence.
Nema travelled to France in November 2019 under a university exchange programme and was arrested in January 2020.
The defendant was initially indicted for complicity in the enforced disappearances of four activists in Eastern Ghouta in late 2013 -- including prominent rights defender Razan Zaitouneh -- but those charges have since been dropped on procedural grounds.
Jaish al-Islam has been accused of involvement in the abduction, though it has denied this.
France has since 2010 been able to try cases under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which argues some crimes are so serious that all states have the obligation to prosecute offenders.
The country's highest court upheld this principle in 2023, allowing for the investigation into Nema to continue.
A previous trial in May of Syrians charged over their actions in the war took place because French nationals were the victims, rather than under the principle of universal jurisdiction.
A Paris court in that trial ordered life sentences for three top Syrian security officials linked to the former Assad government for their role in the torture and disappearance of a French-Syrian father and son in Syria in 2013.
They were tried in absentia.
Syria's conflict has killed more than half a million people and displaced millions more from their homes since it erupted in 2011 with a brutal crackdown on anti-government protests.
edy-bur/ah/sjw/gil/tc
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
These are the safest places in America for gay and transgender people
These are the safest places in America for gay and transgender people Which states are the best and worst for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans to live and work? More and more, it's a question of partisan politics. Here's why. Show Caption Hide Caption See as rock climbers hang Transgender Pride flag in Yosemite Rock climbers unfurled a large Transgender Pride flag on El Capitan in Yosemite National Park. The National Park Service has since removed it. As Oklahoman legislators push to restrict trans rights and overturn the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, Zane Eaves says his identity as a transgender man has put a target on his back in his home state. One of 18,900 trans adults in Oklahoma, Eaves has received death threats as has his wife of 10 years and their two children. 'All the hatred and political stuff going on' are driving this Oklahoma lifer from the place he was born and raised, Eaves, 35, said. He has only crossed the state line three times in his life, but in recent weeks, he made the difficult decision to move his family to North Carolina to be closer to friends and allies. 'I am just trying to stay alive and keep my marriage,' Eaves said. Oklahoma ranks 44th in the nation on a list released Monday of the most and least welcoming states for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans. More and more, the question of where LGBTQ+ people feel safe is one of blue vs. red, according to advocacy group Out Leadership. LGBTQ+ equality fell across the board for the third straight year, according to Out Leadership's State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index shared exclusively with USA TODAY. But the sharpest declines came in Republican-led states. While progressive strongholds championed supportive policies and protections, conservative states elected a slate of leaders who openly oppose gay and trans rights and sponsored an unprecedented wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, Out Leadership CEO and founder Todd Sears said. So-called 'Don't Say Gay' bills, religious exemptions and other legislation tanked the rankings of 19 red states in the Out Leadership index, according to Sears. Today, the divide between states that roll out the welcome mat and less hospitable parts of the country is wider than ever, he said. The least and most welcoming LGBTQ+ states Each year for the last seven, Out Leadership has released the State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index to gauge the overall climate for gay and transgender people state by state, mapping out where they will face the most and the least discrimination and hardship. Out Leadership's index measures the impact of state government policies and prevalent attitudes about the LGBTQ+ community, weighing factors such as support for young people and families, health access and safety, political and religious attitudes, work environment and employment and nondiscrimination protections. The Northeast had six of the 10 highest-ranked states, while the Southeast had six of the lowest-ranked. Massachusetts, led by the nation's first openly lesbian governor, Democrat Maura Healey and New York, which guaranteed gender-affirming care and LGBTQ+ refugee protections, tied for first place in this year's index, with Connecticut and New Jersey close behind. The least LGBTQ+ friendly state was Arkansas, which ranked last for the third straight year. South Carolina, Louisiana, South Dakota and Alabama also received low scores. The states that had the largest gains in the index were Kentucky and Michigan, which Out Leadership attributed to 'pro-equality' leadership from governors Andy Beshear and Gretchen Whitmer, both Democrats. The steepest declines were in Ohio, Florida and Utah, all led by Republican governors. Where are the safest places to live? The Out Leadership index was created as a LGBTQ+ inclusion reference guide for business leaders. But gay and trans people soon began using it to figure out where they should – and should not – live and work, never more so than now as rights rollbacks from the Trump administration and red statehouses hit close to home. Opposition to transgender rights was a central plank in Trump's presidential campaign and since taking office he has signed a series of executive orders recognizing only male and female genders, keeping trans athletes out of women's sports, banning trans people from serving in the military and restricting federal funding for gender-affirming care for trans people under age 19. Even states seen as safer for LGBTQ+ people have been navigating these edicts around trans athletes. Trump threatened to cut federal funding to California if a trans girl competed in a state track and field event held Saturday. AB Hernandez, a junior from Jurupa Valley High School in Riverside County, shared first place in the high jump and triple jump and second in the long jump. She shared the awards podium with her cisgender competitors under a new rule drafted by state athletics officials days before the event to mollify critics. Republican-led states have been in the vanguard of anti-trans legislation, causing greater geographic polarization and prompting fears among LGBTQ+ residents, even those who live in liberal cities. Jordan McGuire, a 27-year-old gay man in North Dakota, said the years he spent living in the Deep South taught him about the repressive discrimination routinely faced by gay and genderqueer people. At the same time, socially progressive cities in conservative states like Fargo and Grand Forks are no longer the safe havens they once were, he said. Now that his fiancee is transitioning to female, the couple is exploring a move to a 'sanctuary' state that will be safer for them. 'It feels like five or 10 years ago, trans people were not under the same microscope they are now and that has definitely influenced our move,' McGuire said. 'Yeah, people were prejudiced but it wasn't a witch hunt. They weren't looking for people in bathrooms and schools. But now things are so polarized.' That rising anxiety was captured in a post-election survey from UCLA's Williams Institute which found that nearly half of transgender people had already fled unsupportive communities and nearly 1 in 4 were considering uprooting their lives. The most frequently cited reasons for wanting to move were concerns about LGBTQ+ rights – 76% – the sociopolitical climate – 71% – anti-trans rhetoric and climate – 60% – and anti-trans laws and policies – 47%. LGBTQ+ Americans on the move Interest in relocating to friendlier states is even higher today than it was after Trump's reelection, say nonprofit workers who aid trans and gender-diverse people relocate to more liberal states with broader protections. So far in 2025, Rainbow Railroad in Canada has received more than 3,000 requests from LGBTQ+ people living in the United States, up more than 1,000% from the same time last year, according to communications director Timothy Chan. Nearly all requested international relocation support. For now, Rainbow Railroad can't aid Americans with resettlement services because of immigration restrictions, Chan said. TRACTION has heard from a record number of people from states as far away as Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas with many of them reporting being threatened or feeling unsafe in their homes and neighborhoods, said Michael Woodward, the executive director of the trans-led organization in Washington state. Trans and gender-diverse people historically face financial hardship due to systemic oppression and discrimination, and need assistance finding jobs and housing as well as with interstate moving expenses that can run tens of thousands, Woodward said. TRACTION used to get a few applications a week until Trump won a second term. In the two weeks following the election, 'we received as many requests for assistance as we'd received in the entire life of the project thus far,' he said. After the inauguration, TRACTION started getting three to five applications every day. With one employee and a handful of volunteers, his organization is struggling to keep up with demand, Woodward said.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Russia and Ukraine to talk about peace but are still far apart
By Vladimir Soldatkin and Tom Balmforth ISTANBUL (Reuters) -Russian and Ukrainian officials are due to sit down on Monday in the Turkish city of Istanbul for their second round of direct peace talks since 2022, but the two sides are still far apart on how to end the war and the fighting is stepping up. U.S. President Donald Trump has demanded Russia and Ukraine make peace, but so far they have not and the White House has repeatedly warned the United States will "walk away" from the war if the two sides are too stubborn to reach a peace deal. The first round of talks on May 16 yielded the biggest prisoner swap of the war but no sign of peace - or even a ceasefire as both sides merely set out their own opening negotiating positions. After keeping the world guessing on whether Ukraine would even turn up for the second round, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Defence Minister Rustem Umerov would meet with Russian officials in Istanbul. The Russian delegation will be headed by Kremlin aide Vladimir Medinsky, who after the first round invoked French general and statesman Napoleon Bonaparte to assert that war and negotiations should always be conducted at the same time. On Sunday, Ukraine launched one of its most ambitious attacks of the war, targeting Russian nuclear-capable long-range bombers in Siberia and other military bases, while the Kremlin launched 472 drones at Ukraine, Ukraine's air force said, the highest nightly total of the war. The idea of direct talks was first proposed by President Vladimir Putin after Ukraine and European powers demanded that he agree to a ceasefire which the Kremlin dismissed. Putin said Russia would draft a memorandum setting out the broad contours of a possible peace accord and only then discuss a ceasefire. Kyiv said over the weekend it was still waiting for draft memorandum from the Russian side. Medinsky, the lead Kremlin negotiator, said on Sunday that Moscow had received a Ukraine's draft memorandum and told Russia's RIA news agency the Kremlin would react to it on Monday. According to Trump envoy Keith Kellogg, the two sides will in Turkey present their respective documents outlining their ideas for peace terms, though it is clear that after three years of war Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart. Kellogg has indicated that the U.S. will be involved in the talks and that even representatives from Britain, France and Germany will be too, though it was not clear at what level the United States would be represented. Ukraine's delegation will also include its deputy foreign minister, as well as several military and intelligence officials, according to an executive order by Zelenskiy on Sunday. In June last year, Putin set out his opening terms for an immediate end to the war: Ukraine must drop its NATO ambitions and withdraw all of its troops from the entirety of the territory of four Ukrainian regions claimed and mostly controlled by Russia. Ukrainian negotiators in Istanbul will present to the Russian side a proposed roadmap for reaching a lasting peace settlement, according to a copy of the document seen by Reuters. According to the document, there will be no restrictions on Ukraine's military strength after a peace deal is struck, no international recognition of Russian sovereignty over parts of Ukraine taken by Moscow's forces, and reparations for Ukraine. The document also stated that the current location of the front line will be the starting point for negotiations about territory. Russia currently controls a little under one fifth of Ukraine, or about 113,100 square km, about the same size as the U.S. state of Ohio. Putin ordered tens of thousands of troops to invade Ukraine in February 2022 after eight years of fighting in eastern Ukraine between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian troops. The United States says over 1.2 million people have been killed and injured in the war since 2022. Trump has called Putin "crazy" and berated Zelenskiy in public in the Oval Office, but the U.S. president has also said that he thinks peace is achievable and that if Putin delays then he could impose tough sanctions on Russia. (Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; Additional reporting by Lidia Kelly; Editing by Jane Merriman and Lincoln Feast.)
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge set to pass verdict after trial of man who burned Koran
A judge is set to pass verdict after the trial of a man who burned a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London. Hamit Coskun, 50, shouted 'f*** Islam', 'Islam is religion of terrorism' and 'Koran is burning' as he held the flaming Islamic text aloft in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, London, on February 13, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard last week. Coskun denies a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress', motivated by 'hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam', contrary to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Public Order Act 1986. He also pleaded not guilty to an alternative charge of using disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress', contrary to section five of the Public Order Act 1986. The charges are alternative to each other, meaning if hostility towards religion is not proven, Coskun could still be found guilty of the simple offence of disorderly behaviour. His lawyer, Katy Thorne KC, argued last week that the prosecution is effectively trying to revive blasphemy laws, which were abolished in England and Wales in 2008 and Scotland in 2021. Blasphemy remains an offence in Northern Ireland but is rarely enforced. Prosecutor Philip McGhee said the case is about disorderly conduct, not the act of burning the Koran itself, adding that the prosecution of Coskun does not represent a restriction on criticising religion. Turkey-born Coskun, who is half Kurdish and half Armenian, travelled from his home in the Midlands and set fire to the Koran at around 2pm, the court heard. In footage captured on a mobile phone by a passerby that was shown to the court, a man approached and asked Coskun why he was burning a copy of the Koran. Coskun can be heard making a reference to 'terrorist' and the man called the defendant 'a f****** idiot'. The man approached him allegedly holding a knife or bladed article and appeared to slash out at him, the court heard. The footage appeared to show Coskun back away and use the burning Koran to deflect the attacker, who is alleged to have slashed out at him again. The man chased Coskun, and the defendant stumbled forward and fell to the ground, dropping the Koran, the footage showed. Coskun was spat at and kicked by the man, the court heard. The man said: 'Burning the Koran? It's my religion, you don't burn the Koran.' Coskun had posted on social media that he was protesting against the 'Islamist government' of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who the defendant allegedly said 'has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime', prosecutors said. The defendant, who is an atheist, believes that he protested peacefully and burning the Koran amounted to freedom of expression, the court heard. His legal fees are being paid for by the Free Speech Union and the National Secular Society (NSS). District Judge John McGarva will pass verdict at the same court on Monday. Stephen Evans, chief executive of the NSS, said before the trial: 'A successful prosecution in this case could represent the effective criminalisation of damaging a Koran in public, edging us dangerously close to a prohibition on blasphemy. 'The case also highlights the alarming use of public order laws to curtail our collective right to protest and free speech based on the subjective reactions of others. 'Establishing a right not to be offended threatens the very foundation of free expression.' A spokesperson for Humanists UK previously said that a successful prosecution would 'effectively resurrect the crime of blasphemy in England and Wales – 17 years after its abolition'. They added: 'This reintroduction of blasphemy by the back door would have profound consequences, not only for free expression in the UK but for the safety and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of so-called 'apostates' in the UK and their right to freedom of thought and conscience.'
