The Fact-Finding Mission of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
concluded last Monday that there weren’t reasonable grounds to determine that toxic chemicals were used by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in October 2017 at Al-Yarmouk in the Syrian Arab Republic. Interestingly, this conclusion contrasts with the OPCW
finding in February 2024 which held ISIL responsible for a chemical attack in Marea, Syria back in 2015.
In its report, the OPCW found no indication that chemicals had been used as a weapon by ISIL. However, the report noted that the process of gathering evidence had become increasingly complex, with a number of potential witnesses having passed away during the conflict, or still missing. Some individuals who initially agreed to provide testimony later declined.
These reports add complexity to international actions against involved parties in the Syrian Civil War. The use of chemical weapons in Syria became internationally known after the US launched missile strikes in 2017 and 2018, allegedly in response to the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. In November 2023, Al Jazeera reported that France had
issued arrest warrants for Assad and another government official over the alleged use of chemical weapons during the Civil War. Though consistently denying any use of chemical weapons, the Syrian regime attributed all chemical attacks to opposing groups. This defence was built on a 2013-2014 joint
OPCW-UN mission which claimed to have removed or destroyed all chemical weapons held by the Syrian government.
It is clear that as new reports from the OPCW come to light, it will continue to influence the international response to the Syrian Civil War. Legal professionals must stay tuned to these reports. They provide essential context and evidence for any legal actions or proceedings related to the use of chemical weapons during the conflict.