Syrian torture victims told me their stories. Finally, courts are giving them justice.

One of the first torture survivors I interviewed in Syria was a 17-year-old boy, beaten so badly he could barely move. It was April 2011. The stories of Syrians detained for participating in peaceful demonstrations were horrifying, but then, in the early days of the Arab Spring, there was also so much hope – for a different Syria, where democracy and respect for human rights and justice would be the norm. 

This hope faded quickly, as the country fell into full-fledged armed conflict. My notebooks started to fill with hundreds of testimonies about torture, forced disappearances, executions and, later, aerial bombardments and chemical attacks.

It seemed incredible that in the 21st century such massive crimes could be committed in plain sight, year after year, with absolute impunity. The perpetrators and masterminds appeared completely shielded from justice, as one of the few options for accountability – bringing Syria to the International Criminal Court – continued to be blocked by Russia and China. 

But the courage of survivors, the persistence of lawyers and human rights groups, and the determination of European prosecutors are now breaking this cycle of abuse and impunity. 

Ex-Syrian colonel sentenced to life 

Germany opened a trial recently against a Syrian doctor accused of crimes against humanity, including torture and murder while working at military hospitals. 

This follows this month's landmark verdict by a German court that sentenced Anwar Raslan, a former Syrian colonel, to life in prison for crimes against humanity, including murder, torture and sexual assault.

The court found that Raslan supervised the torture of more than 4,000 people at a prison in Damascus, resulting in the deaths of at least 58 people.  

Don't disregard China's abuse: America's diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympics isn't enough

Such court cases are, without a doubt, a beacon of hope for survivors of the Assad regime’s crimes. They are also a reminder of how far we still are from the world where justice is truly universal and accountability for the most serious crimes is borderless.  

The legal principle under which the German court could prosecute the Syrian colonel is known as universal jurisdiction. This principle, developed in the 20th century, particularly in response to the atrocities committed during World War II, allows the states to prosecute some of the most serious offenses, such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, regardless of where they have been committed or of the nationality of the perpetrators.

Straight to your inbox: Get our roundup of expert opinion and analysis on global issues

Is international justice realistic? 

Putting this idea into practice has been fraught with challenges. Laws vary and usually require the perpetrator’s presence in the country. Political considerations often take precedence over prosecuting high-level state officials, and carrying out an investigation is complicated.

This is even more true when the crime scene is inaccessible, and witnesses often cannot be guaranteed necessary protection. 

As a result, only a handful of countries, mainly in Europe, have successfully prosecuted such cases – and even these took years, sometimes decades, to reach the trial stage.  

But this does not have to be the case.

No haven for atrocities 

More than 160 countries provide for universal jurisdiction for at least one international crime. More global commitment would improve international cooperation and data sharing, which is critical for such investigations. 

Freedom speaks: Meet the NBA player taking on China and LeBron James in the name of human rights

There is a growing trend of law enforcement agencies joining forces with civil society – nongovernmental organizations, journalists, lawyers, diaspora groups. These private actors often have much more flexibility and dedicated resources to both document the crimes and support the survivors, and they increasingly carry out documentation to a standard acceptable in courts.   

The United States could play a prominent role in this process, given its significant law enforcement resources and political power. It would be essential to reverse the trend of recent years, by actively supporting the International Criminal Court, using and expanding domestic laws to enable prosecutions of the most serious crimes committed abroad, and providing investigative support to foreign law enforcement agencies pursuing such cases.  

It won’t be easy and won’t happen overnight. But it is one that we must continue to push for because there should be no haven for those who commit atrocities.  

Anna Neistat documented human rights violations in Syria while working for Human Rights Watch. She is now the Legal Director at The Docket, an initiative of the Clooney Foundation for Justice, focused on investigations and legal action in cases of international crimes.