Syria's mass graves: Accounting for the dead and disappeared is crucial for the nation to heal
Shortly after the fall of Bashar Assad in Syria in December 2024, reports emerged of mass graves being uncovered in liberated areas.
Grim as such discoveries are, they should come as little surprise. The scale of the regime's torture and killings in its detention facilities became evident years earlier, when in January 2014 a forensic photographer defected and left the country with a cache of 55,000 photos of people who had been tortured and died in detention.
As an expert in forensic anthropology and mass casualties in conflict, I was asked to evaluate what became known as the 'Caesar photographs.' What was clear to me then, and is even more so now, is that those photos represented a systematic approach to torturing, killing and disappearing massive numbers of people by the Assad regime.
With Assad now gone, the newly formed government of the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has vowed to seek justice for the crimes Syrians suffered under Assad. Doing so will be difficult, even with the civil war in Syria being one of the better monitored conflicts in recent history. Yet it is a task that is imperative for the sake of pursuing justice in a shattered country and reducing the likelihood of violence returning to Syria.
Since Syria erupted into violence in 2011, several groups have been collecting evidence of human rights violations. These include the Syrian Justice and Accountability Center, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the Syrian Emergency Task Force and the Commission for International Justice and Accountability. Internationally, the United Nations established an International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria in 2016 to assist any investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for serious violations of international law in Syria since March 2011.
Estimates of those killed since the start of civil conflict in 2011 range anywhere from 100,000 to over 600,000, with civilian deaths accounting for at least 160,000.
Many of these deaths have been at the hands of the Assad regime. But different armed groups, including the al-Nusra Front and Islamic State group, have also been accused of atrocities.
From the perspective of holding perpetrators accountable, that could complicate matters. The leader of now ruling Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is the founder of the al-Nusra Front and might not be willing to hold his group or others accountable or acknowledge the crimes of that group.
There are three dimensions of accounting for the missing following conflict. First, there is the task of identifying and repatriating the remains of those in mass graves to allow family and friends to grieve. Second, the rights of victims to know the truth about what happened to their loved ones needs to be addressed. And finally, the process needs to provide justice, accountability and reconciliation, regardless of who was responsible.
But before this can take place, the question of who is responsible for the accounting needs to be addressed.
Countries coming out of civil conflict have turned to different mechanisms, from truth commissions to criminal tribunals. In the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, special U.N. courts were set up to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of grievous crimes. These tribunals were created as independent judicial bodies dedicated to investigating and prosecuting those most responsible for the crimes that had been committed during conflict.
Guatemala, which emerged from a decades-long civil war in 1996, turned to national human rights and victim organizations to take the lead in a process of 'transitional justice.' This included the Commission for Historical Clarification, which through its investigation concluded that an estimated 200,000 people had been killed.
The nongovernmental Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala, or FAFG, has since 1993 formed a fundamental part of searching, identifying and repatriating the missing. FAFG collects personal information, DNA profiles and witness statements and is responsible for protecting the rights of victims' families in Guatemala's judicial system.
Its work continues to this day.
As to the Syrian civil war, a decision over the scope of any investigation into the disappeared and dead will likewise have to be made.
Will it include all those missing and in mass graves in areas held by al-Nusra, the Islamic State group and other armed groups, as well as those killed by Assad? The fact that groups and individuals that now form the government could have been involved in human rights violations may risk future investigations being skewed toward just the victims of Assad.
Even if the scope was narrowed to Assad's crimes, it's unclear how far back one should go. Assad rule in Syria began more than 50 years ago under Assad's father, Hafez al Assad. And killings and disappearances date back to the elder's time in power, including the 1982 massacre in the city of Hama in which an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 were killed.
Another fact-finding question concerns the sharing of information between civil society groups and the state.
The information gathered on the war by various NGOs so far is technically held or 'owned' by such groups, not the Syrian state. This is for a good reason, as victims trust these organizations to protect information from the perpetrators, some of whom might form part of the new government.
The International Commission on Missing Persons, an NGO with its seat in the Netherlands, gained its reputation while identifying the dead from the conflict in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and early 2000s. It has already collected and stored testimonies from over 76,200 Syrian relatives of more than 28,000 missing persons and has identified 66 mass grave locations. Other organizations have similar testimonies.
But to what extent will these groups share their data and analysis with a future Syrian state led by a rebel group that itself is accused of human rights violations, such as arbitrary detentions and torture?
At some point, the state of Syria will need to be involved in the process. Legally and in practice, the state issues a citizen's 'civil identity' through things such as a birth certificate that establish a person with rights and responsibilities. In the same manner, the state issues death certificates in which the manner of death determines any judicial reactions – such as a criminal investigation in cases where the death is due to homicide.
The state is also important in resolving issues such as inheritance and widower status.
Identifying the remains from the mass graves is therefore not just a 'technical' issue dependent on cutting-edge DNA laboratories and missing-persons databases. It is also something that any future Syrian state should work toward, and then own and take responsibility for.
Shifting responsibility away from the state to an international body would not really help Syria develop its own accountability mechanisms or hold the government to delivering justice for the victims and their families.
In my view, empowering victims in this transitional justice process needs to be a priority for the Syrian state. This includes the establishment of a transparent forensic and investigative effort to address the concerns of families searching for loved ones.
It should not, I believe, be outsourced. From my experience with similar processes elsewhere, it is important that Syrians become 'experts' in all aspects of this process. No doubt, the task will take time and searching for the truth about what happened, and will involve perpetrators and victims alike.
It might well be a painful and painstaking process. But it is a necessary one if postconflict Syrian is to hold to account those who attempted to 'erase' the identity of victims by disappearing them, burying them in mass graves, or leaving them under the bombed rubble of their neighborhoods.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Stefan Schmitt, Florida International University
Read more:
Assad leaves behind a fragmented nation – stabilizing Syria will be a major challenge for fractured opposition and external backers
Syria after Assad: A fresh chance for inclusive governance and power-sharing, or more of the same?
Why Syria's reconstruction may depend on the fate of its minorities
Stefan Schmitt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Syria orders women to wear burkinis on public beaches
Women in Syria must wear burkinis or swimwear that covers their body at public beaches and swimming pools, its tourism ministry has declared. It is the first time Damascus' Islamist authorities have issued guidelines for women to observe conservative dress codes since Bashar al-Assad's autocratic regime was toppled in December, amid concerns the country's new rulers could implement a more religiously conservative agenda. The new restrictions were part of a wider decree that detailed public safety guidelines for beaches and swimming pools, such as not spending too long in the sun. Syrians should wear 'appropriate swimwear that respects public decency and the feelings of different segments of society', it said, which required 'more modest swimsuits'. The order specified that women should wear 'the burkini or swimming clothes that cover the body more'. Men are required to wear shirts under the guidance, which said that 'topless clothing is not permitted in public areas outside of swimming areas, hotel lobbies, and food service areas'. 'In public areas outside of beaches and pools, it is preferable to wear loose clothing, covering shoulders and knees, and avoid transparent or overly tight clothing,' it added. Although 'normal Western swimwear' is still permitted at private clubs and luxury hotels, it said the new rules should be followed 'with adherence to public morals and within the limits of public taste'. The ministry said 'lifeguards and beach supervisors' would monitor compliance to the guidelines. Repercussions for rule breakers are unclear. The crackdown reflects the influence of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) the de-facto Islamist coalition, designated a terrorist organisation by the UN the US, EU and UK, who led the lighting offensive that ousted Assad's regime and are now running Syria. Ahmad al-Sharaa, Syria's new president, has been working to assure global leaders that he won't restrict women's rights in the new Syria. Sunni Islamist group HTS – which has its roots in al-Qaeda – claims it has a more nuanced approach to implementing Sharia law than other hardline regimes in the Middle East. For example, Iran's morality police have brutally cracked down on women and girls perceived as failing to comply with the mandatory hijab laws and regulations, using public flogging and beatings as punishment. But al-Sharaa is treading a fine line, with observers abroad keeping a keen eye on signs that Syria could implement stricter Islamic laws. In December, he provoked a social media furore when he requested that a young woman who approached him for a photo covered her hair before taking a picture. Syria is working to rebuild after it was ravaged by 14 years of civil war. Last month, US president Donald Trump promised to lift economic sanctions on Syria, representing a major US policy shift toward the country. 'I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,' said Mr Trump. 'It's their time to shine. We're taking them all off,' he added. 'Good luck Syria, show us something very special.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lammy is picking a needless fight with America
The alarming revelation that 2024 recorded the highest number of global conflicts since the Second World War should be taken as an incentive to deepen ties with key allies, not fracture them. That would certainly be the response of any government committed to the defence of the realm faced with the depressing statistic that last year saw 61 conflicts taking place in 36 countries. Of these, 11 were defined as full-blown conflicts – those that claimed at least 1,000 battlefield deaths – and included the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as other less-publicised violent eruptions in Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Ethiopia. At a time when Sir Keir Starmer is attempting to promote his national security credentials, the rising tide of conflict detailed in a report by Sweden's Uppsala University should prompt his Government to strengthen ties with key allies such as the US and Israel. Instead, by opting to target two members of the Israeli government with sanctions, Starmer has shown that he is more interested in virtue-signalling than common sense. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich may come from the ulta-nationalist fringe of Israeli politics, but they remain important members of Israel's democratically elected government, which is one of the UK's closest allies in the Middle East. Moreover, Israel, just like Ukraine, finds itself in the vanguard of the West's deepening confrontation with two of the most potent threats it faces, in the form of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorism. The UK's support for Ukraine, together with its European allies, is predicated on the understanding that Western security would be fatally compromised if Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine were to succeed. Similarly, the UK's declaration of support for Israel in the wake of the October 7 attacks in 2023 was based on the tacit acknowledgement that it was in the West's interests that Iran's backing for Hamas terrorists must not be allowed to go unchallenged, especially given the ayatollahs' fixation with developing nuclear weapons. The Labour Government's decision, therefore, to single out two prominent members of the Israeli government for public censure not only threatens to undermine relations with a key regional ally. It runs the risk of jeopardising our own national security, especially if the Israelis conclude it is no longer in their interests to share vital intelligence with the UK. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar has already announced the Israeli cabinet will meet next week to respond to what he called an 'unacceptable decision'. The British Government's decision to pick on the two politicians is hardly surprising given its previous lamentable track record of targeting Israel, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy declaring his support for the International Criminal Court and its highly politicised move to prosecute Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Yet, by siding with other self-righteous, but wholly naive, administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, to provoke an entirely avoidable diplomatic row with Israel, Starmer and Co have placed themselves firmly on the wrong side of history. Apart from alienating Israel, the move also risks causing a rift with the US, another key ally. America's secretary of state Marco Rubio was particularly critical of the measures imposed against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for 'inciting violence against the Palestinian people'. The sanctions 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war,' he said, urging the UK 'not to forget who the real enemy is'. Hitting two controversial Israeli politicians with sanctions might play to Labour's vociferously anti-Israel supporters, but it could prove to be a self-defeating move in terms of safeguarding our own long-term interests. In terms of the likely impact it will have on Israeli policy, the sanctions will be about as effective as Greta Thunberg's equally puerile attempt this week to break Israel's Gaza blockade with her Freedom Flotilla. At the same time they run the risk of sending a signal to Iran and other hostile regimes that the UK is more interested in embarrassing its allies than confronting its enemies. It is certainly hard to grasp the logic of why, when Western powers like the UK are preparing to confront Iran over its nuclear programme, they should choose this moment to pick a fight with Israel, Tehran's sworn enemy. The need to impose fresh sanctions against Iran was very much in evidence at this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, when Rafael Grossi, the body's director general, confirmed three new previously undeclared nuclear sites had been identified in Iran that could be used for developing nuclear weapons. The UK is among a number of European powers that have responded by pressing for the reimposition of sanctions against Tehran. But the ayatollahs are unlikely to change course on their nuclear ambitions if they believe they share a common interest with Britain and its allies in targeting the Israelis. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.


Harvard Business Review
8 hours ago
- Harvard Business Review
Five Ways Companies Learn to Thrive in an Unpredictable World
by Courtney Rickert McCaffrey and Oliver Jones Geopolitics, and how to manage its potentially seismic risks, is an increasingly pressing concern for business leaders. References to geopolitics and political risk in corporate public documents skyrocketed 600% three years ago and remain three to four times higher than before 2022. And it's not just talk: Political risk—the decisions, events, and conditions that might affect the performance of a company, market, or economy—is having a material impact. The recent tariff announcements caused widespread disruption worldwide. While the scale and scope of these promised tariffs took many observers and markets by surprise, the underlying forces propelling the tariff agenda are both long-standing and global, contributing to this heightened emphasis on political risk appearing in corporate documents. Shaping Supply Chains Sixty percent of more than 1,000 global executives surveyed in EY-Parthenon's Geostrategy in Practice 2025 report said political risk harms their operations and supply chains. (These executives lead companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue, representing more than 20 sectors, including consumer and retail, advanced manufacturing and industrial products, life sciences, and technology.) Such supply chain impacts are unsurprising, given recent headline-making policymaker priorities. Governments worldwide have implemented industrial policies and trade protectionism around critical products and strategic sectors. There's also been greater use of sanctions and anti-sanctions policies and a flurry of regulatory activity, particularly around sustainability and artificial intelligence (AI). In response, most companies are taking strategic action. All executives surveyed said geopolitics had driven strategic changes at their companies, especially for supply chains. Nearly all (94%) said they had invested more time and resources in geostrategy over the past two years, and almost as many (93%) plan to invest more. The percentage of companies taking action across multiple levels of their organizations is also rising—from 24% in 2021 to 37% in 2025. But there is more work to be done. One-third of global executives say they were surprised by most or all political risks that affected their companies in the past two years, 77% of them at least half the time. So how do executives better prepare for future geopolitical and tariff shocks? Becoming a Geostrategist Leading the field in preparing for unexpected political risk are a group of companies EY-Parthenon classifies as 'Geostrategists.' These companies are those taking the most proactive and comprehensive actions to strategically manage geopolitical risk. They operate across all sectors but are concentrated in the retail, power and utilities, real estate and construction, and telecommunications and media industries. Since 2021, Geostrategists have increased in number by 50%. EY-Parthenon teams identified five habits common to successful Geostrategists: 1. They adapt supply chains to geopolitical realities. Geostrategists are more likely than other organizations to have altered their supply chains in response to political risks in the past two years, so they can more effectively manage geopolitical risks, remain resilient, and adapt to the increasingly complex global landscape. One manufacturing company surveyed maps its entire supply chain to identify pockets of risk and, when finding high risk, considers finding new suppliers or redesigning its products. And a life sciences company reconfigured its supply chain after finding vulnerabilities. 2. They build political risk analysis into investment decisions. Integrating political risk as they determine their investments helps Geostrategists enhance M&A success, optimize growth strategies, and save time and resources amid geopolitical uncertainties and macroeconomic challenges. For example, all Geostrategists conduct political risk due diligence when evaluating a potential transaction. 3. They prepare for the unexpected. Geostrategists are more likely to have invested in identifying and monitoring political risk and to use political risk scenario planning to design and test strategy. These strategies help prepare them for unexpected events, such as conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. 4. They regularly engage their boards on geostrategy. Geostrategists' boards are increasingly focused on geostrategy, with 85% incorporating political risk into future-oriented strategic decisions, including M&A and market entry. In 2025, 76% of boards took action on political risk—up from 26% in 2021. 5. They have the right roles at the geostrategy table. Geostrategists are more likely to have cross-functional and collaborative governance teams. In 2021, a function or business unit was the body most likely to have responsibility for geopolitics (52%). In 2025, it is a committee (52%, up from 39%). The number of executives involved has almost doubled, with the general counsel and chief compliance officer increasingly sharing responsibility with the chief risk officer. Geostrategy for Competitive Advantage It is not easy to become a Geostrategist. It requires investments in capabilities and is never 'finished.' But benchmarking against the habits of Geostrategists can help companies identify where to invest for resilience and growth—so they can anticipate and respond to political risk and seize potential opportunities more effectively than their peers.