France has issued arrest warrants for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, his brother Maher al-Assad who is the de facto chief of the Syrian elite military unit, and two other high-ranking generals from the armed forces. These warrants are directly tied to two chemical weapons attacks that occurred in Ghouta, Syria in August 2013.
The initiation of these warrants is connected to a profound investigation into the chemical weapons attacks. This examination was set in motion in 2021 subsequent to the two chemical weapons attacks after various nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) alongside the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM), filed a complaint with the French Specialized Unit for Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes of the Paris Judicial Court. The main focus of the investigation is the alleged responsibility of the Syrian government for the use of chemical weapons during the Syrian civil war.
More than 1,000 people lost their lives in the chemical attacks that transpired in the city of Douma and the Eastern Ghouta region. The SCM argues that the usage of chemical weapons is a jus cogens crime, indicating an absolute prohibition against chemical warfare, regardless of state leadership. The Chemical Weapons Convention, to which Syria became a member in 2013, restricts the use of chemical weapons specifically. The Syrian government has reportedly used sarin, despite its denial of the use of chemical warfare. The UN has uncovered “clear and convincing” evidence pointing to the use of sarin.
The case was established on the foundation of France’s principle of universal jurisdiction which enables punishment and judgment of torture, crimes against humanity and war crimes if these actions were perpetrated overseas. Neither the perpetrator nor the victim has to be French. Other nations such as Germany and Sweden have received similar complaints regarding the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons.
Though the initiation of these arrest warrants is a procedural step in the ongoing case, SCM describes it as a “historical judicial precedent.”