France’s top court is set to decide whether international law can override immunity for former heads of state, specifically in the case of an arrest warrant for ousted Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
A legal decision with global implications is expected in Paris this Friday, when the Court of Cassation – France's highest judicial authority – will rule on whether to uphold or overturn an arrest warrant for former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Since December 2024, Assad has been living in exile in Russia following a rebel offensive on Damascus, led by the Hayʾat Tahrir al‑Sham rebel group and Turkish-backed forces.
The warrant relates to chemical attacks carried out in 2013, which claimed the lives of over 1,000 people.
This case could mark a turning point in how international law treats heads of state accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
In a rare move, the court’s decision will be delivered during a public hearing streamed live online.
France claims proof of Assad regime sarin gas use
2013 sarin gas attacks
The arrest warrant was originally issued in November 2023 by two investigating judges in Paris, charging Assad with complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The attacks in question took place in August 2013 in Eastern Ghouta – a suburb of Damascus – where sarin gas reportedly killed more than a thousand civilians, and in the towns of Adra and Douma where at least 450 were injured.
The atrocities were widely attributed to the Syrian regime by international observers at the time, including US intelligence.
In June 2024, a Paris Court of Appeal upheld the arrest warrant for the ousted Syrian leader, but France's Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office – and later the Public Prosecutor’s Office – appealed the decision, citing the traditional principle of absolute immunity for sitting heads of state, foreign ministers, and prime ministers before foreign courts.
French court issues second arrest warrant for Syria's Assad
During a special hearing ealier this month, Prosecutor General Rémy Heitz proposed maintaining the arrest warrant for Assad, questioning the appeal court's position that such crimes fall outside the “official functions” of a head of state.
He referred to a 2002 ruling by the International Court of Justice, which reinforced personal immunity in such cases.
Heitz has subsequently presented a more nuanced “third way,” suggesting Assad should not enjoy personal immunity, as France has not recognised him as Syria’s legitimate head of state since 2012 due to the regime's mass atrocities.
Paul Mathonnet, representing the victims and supporting NGOs, has urged the court to allow for exceptions to immunity when it enables impunity – especially in flagrant violations like chemical warfare. “There must be scope to set aside immunity on a case-by-case basis,” he has argued.
France welcomes fall of Syria's Assad, calls for peaceful transition
Ethical concerns
Mazen Darwish from the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression welcomed Heitz’s legal reasoning but raised ethical concerns.
“This approach weakens the moral basis we advocate – that immunity should not shield perpetrators of crimes against humanity,” he said. He also warned against giving individual countries the power to decide which leaders are legitimate, calling it a “dangerous precedent”.
The International Criminal Court has no authority to act in this case because Syria is not a member of the court, and the United Nations Security Council has not referred the situation to it.
The timing of this Friday's ruling is crucial, since Assad took refuge in Russia last December.
Should the Court annul the warrant, new proceedings could be launched – but Assad may then invoke functional immunity, arguing the attacks were committed in his official capacity.
(With AFP)
