On November 27, 2024, the Syrian opposition, led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, announced the launch of a military operation called “Deterring Aggression,” targeting Syrian forces and Iranian militias. The operations expanded across several Syrian cities, with opposition factions making gains in the countryside of Idlib and Aleppo, while Syrian warplanes bombed areas in Idlib, including Ariha and Sarmada.
By December 8, the opposition had seized control of Damascus after a series of victories that began in Aleppo and extended to Hama and Homs, amid fierce battles with the Syrian army and joint Russian airstrikes. It was then announced that President Bashar al-Assad had fled, while the Syrian government declared its readiness to cooperate with the new leadership.
That evening, Russia announced that former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his family had been granted humanitarian asylum. Russian news agencies reported that Assad and his family had arrived in Moscow, and a Kremlin source told TASS and RIA Novosti that the decision was made on humanitarian grounds.
This development sparked widespread debate over its legal and political implications, amid growing international calls for Assad to be held accountable for crimes committed during his rule. Questions also arose about the legal basis on which Russia granted him asylum and the potential political and legal consequences of this decision.
It is important to note that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction only over countries that are members of the Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998 as the treaty establishing the ICC. The ICC has the authority to prosecute individuals accused of committing the most serious international crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
However, the ICC has no jurisdiction over Syria, as Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute. Additionally, Syria has not declared its acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction, and the United Nations Security Council has not referred the Syrian case to the ICC.
Even if the ICC’s jurisdiction were established and an arrest warrant were issued in the future, Russia is not a party to the ICC. Russia’s stance towards the court has grown more hostile since the issuance of an arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Russia has been the most prominent ally of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, having intervened militarily since the Syrian conflict began in 2011. Moscow played a pivotal role in supporting Assad, enabling him to remain in power and regain control over most of the areas lost to the armed opposition. With the fall of Damascus, the Assad family’s rule, which lasted for nearly six decades, came to an end.
Despite this support, Russia faces international legal obligations, particularly under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which requires states to either prosecute or extradite individuals accused of torture. However, since Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute, it is more likely to face criticism rather than direct legal sanctions.
Similarly, the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees excludes individuals accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity from the right to asylum. This makes granting asylum to Assad legally sensitive, especially if international or national demands for his extradition arise.
International law distinguishes between humanitarian asylum, which is granted to protect individuals from immediate danger, and political asylum, which is linked to persecution due to political beliefs or affiliations. Both forms of asylum are subject to legal restrictions, particularly when it comes to excluding those involved in major international crimes.
The crimes committed in Syria cannot be ignored. Although Syria is not part of the Rome Statute, making it difficult to prosecute Assad through the ICC, some countries applying the principle of universal jurisdiction may seek to prosecute him, even if he is under Moscow’s protection.
Russia’s decision to grant asylum to Assad reflects its ongoing support for its allies, even in the most complex circumstances. Analysts see this move as a political message aimed at reinforcing Moscow’s influence in the region, especially in relation to the Syrian file.
Despite Russia’s support, Assad’s fate remains uncertain, as international pressure to hold him accountable could escalate in the future. This puts Russia in a difficult position, torn between protecting its historic ally and facing mounting international criticism.
In the end, Russia’s decision to grant asylum to Assad may serve as a new test of its credibility on the international stage, where politics and law intersect in a complex scene shrouded in uncertainty regarding the fate of the ousted president.
