Recordings circulated online, allegedly from Saydnaya prison before the fall of the Assad regime, have sparked controversy that goes beyond their content to the way they were made public.
The recordings were published today, Tuesday, April 28, through a Facebook account. About three hours after publication, the account owner deleted them.
Instead of representing a step toward exposing violations, the recordings placed the accountability process before challenges related to the integrity of digital evidence and the possibility of relying on it in court.
Concerns are emerging that this type of publication could turn into a legal loophole that benefits suspects, potentially weakening the chances of achieving justice and increasing the suffering of victims and their families.
Obstructing the Path to Justice
Fadel Abdul Ghany, director of the Syrian Network for Human Rights, believes the circulation of these recordings falls within a complex area where three frameworks intersect, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, and the law of digital evidence.
Abdul Ghany told Enab Baladi that circulating such materials in an uncontrolled way falls within a clear regulatory vacuum, due to the current absence of an internationally recognized central authority with exclusive authority to handle them. He stressed that a person who keeps a copy of materials of this nature faces multi-level legal issues.
He explained that keeping evidence related to international crimes outside the control of competent authorities could constitute an obstruction of the path to justice, if it is proven that this was intentional or led to the destruction of part of the evidentiary record.
Article 70(1)(c) of the Rome Statute states the following:
The Court shall have jurisdiction over the following offences against its administration of justice when committed intentionally:
(c) Destroying evidence, tampering with evidence, or interfering with the collection of evidence.
Chain of Custody
The fundamental principle in international law is that the value of evidence is not limited to its content, but includes its verifiability and chain of custody.
According to Abdul Ghany, the “chain of custody” is the backbone of any digital evidence. It means the sequential documentation of every entity or person through whom the material passed, from the moment it was captured until it is submitted to the court.
He said that when anyone leaks a hard drive, or keeps a copy for themselves and publishes from it, this breaks the chain. There is no document proving when the recordings were captured, nor any guarantee that they were not edited or falsified.
For his part, international law expert al-Moutassim al-Kilani told Enab Baladi that accepting these recordings as legal evidence depends on the availability of basic elements, most importantly proving the authenticity of the recording and that it was not tampered with.
Al-Kilani explained that the “chain of custody” is an essential element for ensuring credibility. In the case of materials leaked through personal accounts, this chain is often missing, weakening confidence in the integrity of the recording even if it appears real.
Article 69(4) of the Rome Statute states:
The Court may rule on the relevance or admissibility of any evidence, taking into account, among other things, the probative value of the evidence and any prejudice that such evidence may cause to a fair trial or to a fair evaluation of the testimony of a witness.
Publication Reopens Families’ Wounds
Legal expert al-Moutassim al-Kilani stressed that legal responsibility is not limited to the criminal dimension, but extends to the rights of victims’ families and their humanitarian considerations. He considered that publishing such materials without regard for feelings could amount to a form of renewed harm.
Al-Kilani said the person who leaks or keeps these materials could face civil liability if publication causes direct harm to families, such as exposing them to renewed psychological trauma or violating the privacy of their loved ones.
In the same context, Fadel Abdul Ghany, director of the Syrian Network for Human Rights, noted that there is no international text that absolutely prohibits publication. The right to access information is protected under Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but restrictions include the protection of the rights of others.
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:
- Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers…
- The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others.
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.
Abdul Ghany warned that publishing shocking content in this way without full verification carries direct human rights risks. If the materials are later proven to be fabricated, this would cause serious damage to the credibility of the entire case and could be used by suspects to cast doubt on all other evidence.
Al-Kilani concluded by saying that random publication may lead to the loss of part of the value of these materials as legal evidence. He favored handling them through a dual approach that combines professional human rights documentation with handing the original copies to the competent investigative bodies to ensure their value before the judiciary.
Theft of Documents
On December 19, 2024, the Association of Detainees and the Missing in Saydnaya Prison revealed a theft of documents and computers from Saydnaya prison after the fall of the Assad regime.
The association said in a report that it was able to identify some of the individuals involved in stealing computers from Saydnaya prison, through cross-checked testimonies from local residents and families of the disappeared, along with documentation carried out by association members who were inside the prison on December 8, a few hours after Assad’s fall.
According to eyewitnesses, a group of “shabiha” and thieves linked to the ousted regime infiltrated Saydnaya prison as families began arriving. They stole computers from the surveillance room and some files from the prison’s security records office.
Hours after the regime fell, videos from inside Saydnaya prison spread, showing fighters and civilians walking among shelves containing documents and reports that sealed the fate of tens of thousands of Syrians, or led to their arrest and inhumane treatment. The documents also recorded the names of those responsible.
Documents were thrown on the floor, while others were taken by people, whether civilians or military personnel, some of whom may have been pillars of the former regime. This led to the loss or damage of security documents and reports, and the scale of the loss remains unknown.
The lack of control over people entering detention centers and tampering with their contents continued for about four days, until the Military Operations Administration closed these detention centers. Search and rescue teams, led by the Syrian Civil Defense, completed searches for hidden prisons or rooms inside them, as happened in Saydnaya prison.
The post Saydnaya Prison Leaks Spark Debate Over Evidence and Victims’ Rights appeared first on Enab Baladi.