A legal and legal statement about the decree (39) For a year 2026: Reproducing tyranny, burying transitional justice, and wasting the rights of victims under the guise of general amnesty

A legal and legal statement about the decree (39) For a year 2026: Reproducing tyranny, burying transitional justice, and wasting the rights of victims under the guise of general amnesty
(Legitimizing crime, material benefit, and the sword of repressive laws)
Issued by: National Council for Human Rights History: 19 February 2026
The National Council for Human Rights reviewed the details of Legislative Decree No (39) For a year 2026 Issued by the President of the Transitional Authority. After a legal and material analysis of its articles, the Council declares that this decree represents a serious setback to the path of transitional justice, and carries within it blatant contradictions that serve the interests of the new authority at the expense of the blood and rights of the Syrian people..
Firstly: Challenging constitutional legitimacy and the legitimacy of representation
The Council confirms that the issuance of an amnesty decree “General and comprehensive” Addressing crimes against sovereignty and state security by an unelected transitional authority is a serious abuse of powers. Amending laws or abolishing political crimes is the inherent prerogative of an elected parliament that expresses the will of the people in accordance with the principle of separation of powers, and not “Honored” It is given to wash the records of a dark phase without accountability or disclosure.
secondly: Legalization of oppression (The survival of the texts and the sword of the remaining laws)
The amnesty is for articles “Betrayal” and”State security” (materials 263 to 274 And 285-286) While retaining it in the Syrian Penal Code without repeal or amendment, it is “Legal trap”. While the exceptional courts were abolished, their repressive provisions remained “Ready weapon” In the hands of the ordinary judiciary, which gives the new authority tools of repression ready to apply against any future opposition, and makes the opposition “An exonerated criminal” Not an innocent citizen.
Third: Procedural burden and substance (13) – “The coup de grâce” On justice
The Council considers that Art (13) Which requires submission “Benefit request” Within one month, it is an impossible procedure and a security lure:
• Violating public order: The general amnesty applies automatically and immediately; The requirement to submit a request for transfer “Legal right” to “Administrative transaction” Subject to the whims of the security services and luring wanted persons.
• Ignore fleeing people: The absence of a clear text that protects “fleeing” Thousands of Syrians are left in a gray area vulnerable to arrest despite the amnesty.
Fourth: The trap of terminology and absence “human rights” (Article 8/A)
The Council stops when a term is deliberately omitted “human rights” And replace it with the phrase “Serious violations against the Syrian people”. This deliberate ambiguity aims to disengage from international standards and grant authority “A blank check” To explain violations according to its political whims, to exclude opponents from amnesty under populist names that lack the legal standard..
Fifth: Neglecting the missing file and the discrepancy in “Unjust rulings”
• Any amnesty that ignores the file of tens of thousands of forcibly disappeared people and bypasses neutral international committees is an amnesty. “lame” Formal promises that falsify the facts.
• It is equality “Unjust rulings” (Which is illegal) With “pardon” In one article (8/for) It aims to legitimize impunity for the perpetrators of these violations in the name of “Supreme Judicial Council” affiliated with the authority.
Sixth: Moral contradiction and material benefit (materials 3 And 9)
The decree reveals a purely utilitarian aspect; While the authority showed extreme strictness in collecting fines “Stamps, electricity and tobacco” (Subject 9) As an inviolable compensation to the state, the article was lenient (3) With major smugglers and currency speculators (Warlords). This confirms that financial benefits and deals are more important to this authority than the lives of citizens, and that humans are cheaper than... “Stamp drawing”.
Seventh: Social danger and the legitimization of kidnapping (materials 4 And 278)
• Article (4): Requirement “Freeing the kidnapped person voluntarily” Amnesty for kidnapping crimes protects kidnappers and warlords from accountability for previous periods of detention and torture, which undermines the rights of victims..
• Residence ban: Pardon is a punishment “Residence ban” It is an explicit call for civil strife and revenge, because it deprives the victim of the security distance guaranteed by the law, which will increase cases of revenge and instability..
Demands and final position:

1. We warn the Syrians: This decree does not provide a guarantee; The exceptional laws are still in effect, and they are a trap “Waiving the personal right” (Subject 1) And the deadline 3 Months await you to confiscate your rights.
2. The need to put pressure on real mechanisms: We demand the complete repeal of repressive laws and the activation of the role of independent transitional justice and missing persons committees, under the supervision of a real elected parliament that achieves individual and collective reparation through true national reconciliation..
3. The falsehood of justice was rejected: We affirm that the authority involved in human rights violations and haunted by its past cannot achieve justice or build a democratic civil state, and we reject all formal promises made to the international community..
   Mr. Qutaiba Qasim Al-Arab, President of the National Council for Human Rights

Legal and Human Rights Statement on Legislative Decree No. (39) of 2026: Reproducing Authoritarianism, Burying Transitional Justice, and Undermining Victims’ Rights under the Guise of General Amnesty
(Legitimizing Crime, Material Profit-Seeking, and the Sword of Repressive Laws)
Issued by: The National Council for Human Rights
Date: February 19, 2026
The National Council for Human Rights has closely examined the details of Legislative Decree No. (39) of 2026, issued by the Head of the Transitional Authority. Following a rigorous legal and substantive analysis of its provisions, the Council declares that this decree represents a grave setback for the transitional justice process. It contains blatant contradictions that serve the interests of the new authority at the expense of the lives and rights of the Syrian people.
I. Challenge to Constitutional Legitimacy and Representative Authority
The Council emphasizes that the issuance of a “general and comprehensive” amnesty decree—addressing crimes affecting national sovereignty and state security—by an unelected transitional authority is a perilous overstep of jurisdictions. The amendment of laws or the dismissal of political crimes is an inherent prerogative of an elected parliament that reflects the people’s will in accordance with the principle of the separation of powers. It should not be a “presidential grant” used to whitewash the records of a dark era without accountability or transparency.
II. Institutionalizing Repression: Retaining Legal Provisions and the “Sword of Repressive Laws”
Granting amnesty for “Treason” and “State Security” offenses (Articles 263 to 274 and 285-286) while maintaining these provisions in the Syrian Penal Code without repeal or amendment is a “legal trap.” While exceptional courts have been abolished, their repressive texts remain a “ready weapon” in the hands of the ordinary judiciary. This provides the new authority with ready-made tools for repression against any future dissent, rendering the political opponent a “pardoned criminal” rather than an innocent citizen.
III. Procedural Burden and Article (13): The “Coup de Grace” to Justice
The Council considers Article (13)—which mandates a “request for benefit” within one month—to be an obstructive measure and a security lure:
• Violation of Public Order: General amnesties are traditionally applied automatically and immediately by judicial decree. Requiring a formal request transforms a “legal right” into an “administrative procedure” subject to the whims of security apparatuses and serves as a method for luring wanted individuals.
• Disregard for Fugitives: The absence of clear provisions protecting “fugitives” leaves thousands of Syrians in a legal gray area, vulnerable to arrest despite the amnesty.
IV. The “Terminology Trap” and the Omission of “Human Rights” (Article 8/A)
The Council notes the deliberate omission of the term “Human Rights” in favor of the phrase “gross violations against the Syrian People.” This calculated ambiguity aims to sever ties with international standards and UN conventions, granting the authority a “blank check” to interpret violations based on political whims to exclude opponents under populist labels that lack legal criteria.
V. Neglecting the Enforced Disappearances File and Contradictions in “Unjust Rulings”
• Any amnesty that ignores the file of tens of thousands of forcibly disappeared persons and bypasses independent international commissions is a “crippled” amnesty and represents superficial promises that falsify reality.
• Equating “unjust rulings” (which are legally null and void) with “amnesty” in a single article (8/B) aims to legitimize impunity for the perpetrators of those violations under the name of the “Supreme Judicial Council” affiliated with the authority.
VI. Ethical Contradiction and Material Profiteering (Articles 3 and 9)
The decree reveals a purely utilitarian face; while the authority has shown extreme intransigence in collecting fines related to “electricity, stamps, and tobacco” (Article 9)—considering them non-negotiable state compensation—it has shown leniency in Article (3) toward major smugglers, currency speculators, and “warlords.” This confirms that material profit and financial deals take precedence over citizens’ lives, and that a human being is valued less than a “stamp fee.”
VII. Social Risk and the Legitimization of Kidnapping (Articles 4 and 278)
• Article (4): Conditioning the amnesty for kidnapping on the “voluntary release of the victim” protects kidnappers and warlords from accountability for previous periods of detention and torture, thereby undermining victims’ rights.
• Residency Bans: Pardoning the penalty of “residency bans” is a direct invitation to civil strife and “honor killings” or vendettas, as it deprives the victim of the “safe distance” guaranteed by law, which will lead to increased retaliatory acts and instability.
Demands and Final Position:

1. Warning to Syrians: This decree provides no real guarantee; repressive laws remain in force, and the trap of “waiving personal rights” (Article 1) and the three-month deadline await to confiscate your rights.
2. Necessity of Pressure for Real Mechanisms: We demand the full repeal of repressive laws and the activation of independent transitional justice and missing persons commissions, under the supervision of a truly elected parliament that ensures individual and collective reparations through genuine national reconciliation.
3. Rejection of Pseudo-Justice: We affirm that an authority entangled in human rights violations, haunted by its past, cannot achieve justice or build a democratic civil state. We reject all superficial promises presented to the international community.
   Mr. Qutaiba Qasim Al-Arab
   President of the National Council for Human Rights

Amnesty Decree 2026, Transitional Authority in Syria, Victims’ Rights, Impunity, Anti-Terrorism Law, Enforced Disappearance, National Council for Human Rights, Qutaiba Qasim Al-Arab, Criminal Justice, Legitimacy of Decrees.

Syria Amnesty Decree 2026, Transitional Authority, Victims’ Rights, Impunity, Counter-Terrorism Law, Enforced Disappearances, National Council for Human Rights, Qutaiba Qasim Al-Arab, Criminal Justice, Decree Legitimacy.