Image source: facebook
The Syrian regime regained control of the town of Zakia in 2016 after it had been under the control of opposition factions.
According to the report, these decisions are based on a decree issued in 2012, which authorizes the Ministry of Finance to freeze individuals’ assets under investigation on suspicion of “terrorism” under Syria’s broad Anti-Terrorism Law, even if they have not been charged with a crime.
Adam Coogle, Deputy Director of the Middle East Division at Human Rights Watch, stated that “the regime’s use of anti-terrorism laws to justify freezing assets and illegal confiscations is a deliberate policy aimed at maintaining an atmosphere of fear and repression in former opposition areas.”
Coogle considered that the “arbitrary” nature of this mass freezing of assets in Zakia reflects a broader strategy of collective punishment against local communities in recaptured areas.
Human Rights Watch reviewed the “precautionary seizure” decisions issued between January and June, which targeted hundreds of people from Zakia.
Human Rights Watch confirmed the harm caused by the precautionary seizure decisions by speaking with individuals directly affected. In one available decision, 19 people were directly targeted, and 84 were first-degree relatives, among 103 people listed.
The report added that all the “precautionary seizure” decisions analyzed were based on the “Judicial Police Authority Law” in Syria (Legislative Decree No. 63 of 2012), which authorizes the Ministry of Finance to freeze individuals’ assets conservatively and without a court order at the request of judicial police authorities until the investigation into “crimes against the internal or external security of the state” and the arbitrary Anti-Terrorism Law of 2012 is completed. If prosecuted and convicted, their property is automatically confiscated and transferred to the government.
The Human Rights Watch report considered that such laws create significant obstacles to the return of refugees and displaced persons who wish to reclaim their property and rebuild their lives. They also complicate international reconstruction efforts, as companies involved in demolition or rehabilitation of buildings may risk contributing to human rights abuses and forced displacement if dealing with property illegally seized by the government.
Human Rights Watch stated that Decree No. 63 violates due process guarantees by not providing a means for individuals on the list to challenge or receive official notification of their inclusion. It also violates property rights protected by Article 15 of the Syrian Constitution and international human rights law.
The “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and the “Arab Charter on Human Rights” guarantee the right to property. The Arab Charter states that “the right to private property is guaranteed to every person, and in no case may a person’s property be arbitrarily or illegally confiscated in whole or in part.” International courts have found that the right to property and possessions protects traditional property rights, even if undocumented, on homes and lands, in addition to rights documented by official land ownership deeds and registration.
Syria’s Anti-Terrorism Law broadly defines terrorism in a manner that allows the government to classify nearly any act as a terrorist crime, including humanitarian aid or non-violent protests, and lacks clear procedural standards.
Human Rights Watch called on the Syrian regime’s government to provide specific and individualized reasons for freezing individuals’ assets and allow affected individuals, including relatives, to challenge the decision. It also urged the government to amend the Anti-Terrorism Law and other relevant laws to remove any broad definitions of terrorism and include due process guarantees and fair trial standards.
“Same Justice” organization emphasizes ensuring private property rights, including those of opponents to Assad’s regime, and refugees outside the country or in areas outside its control for political reasons. It calls for the promotion and protection of human rights and movable and immovable property, stressing the need not to use asset freezing as a weapon against opponents or as a means of collective punishment against the people of a specific area, ethnicity, religion, or political orientation.
