Cristian Correa, head of GSF’s Reparation Praxis Hub, recently travelled to Syria to support discussions relating to a future reparations policy. Here he reflects on discussions with survivors on what this should look like – and the problems they continue to face.
In Syria, survivors of arbitrary detention and victims of other human rights violations are helping to define a reparation policy for victims of the civil war and crimes committed by the Assad regime. In a series of consultations organised in in Dara’a, Homs, Hama, and Damascus by the Global Survivors Fund and the Association of Detainees and Missing of Sednaya Prison (ADMSP) survivors identified a long list of violations that must be addressed. However, as they wait, their most pressing needs remain unmet.
Launched in December, these consultations aim to provide guidance on how to define a reparation policy in a country that has seen so much violence and devastation. Carried out in close collaboration with the Transitional Justice Commission of Syria, as well as a wide network of civil society organisations (CSOs), I arrived in Damascus just in time to attend a session of the first round of consultations.
The challenge in Syria is daunting. The abuses committed are vast and well-documented, from arbitrary detention and systematic sexual violence, to torture, forced disappearances, and large-scale forced displacement, among others. Should future reparations cover all of these crimes? What ‘qualifies’ for reparation? This was the question asked during the consultation. The answer was both crimes against individuals – enforced disappearances, sexual violence, and torture, among others – as well as large-scale crimes such as chemical attacks, and sieges should be included.
However, the response to each will be different.
We listened to men and women share agonising experiences of being under siege, losing children or siblings, as well as their own stories of detention and the horrific consequences of this, including incapacitating pain. One woman who had survived detention said what she had endured put her through “deep humiliation.”
“I wish I had died in a siege, or in any other way than have lived through the constant humiliation in detention,” she said. Others present recognised that survivors of detention, torture and sexual violence will require specific attention due to the nature of their injuries, both physical and psychological.
Many of these violations will need massive investment to address, including physical reconstruction of neighbourhoods, housing, provision of health care, educational programmes for all who lost years of education, support for resettlement and return of those displaced, etc. They will also require broader healing at the community level, especially considering the spates of sectarian violence Syria has witnessed since the fall of the regime.
The consequences of torture and detention still affect many, and present severe obstacles to living a normal life. In another consultation, a female survivor said the “harm has not stopped,” and that without urgent medical care, survivors with serious health conditions will only further deteriorate.
The social exclusion and family rejection suffered by many women were also stressed. While men – who are also subjected to sexual violence in detention – are often seen as heroes following their release, women are seen as ‘shameful’ and can face threats to their lives. “When I left the detention centre, people saw me as ‘bad’, one woman said. My family rejected me, and I slept in a park.” As a result, most women survivors of sexual violence do not speak out at all – and can therefore not access whatever help is available, even if modest. Their situation in particular remains critical.
The government, participants said, should clearly state that survivors are not responsible for the abuses they endured, and that they deserve to be welcomed and loved by a society that is trying to heal its wounds. But statements are not enough, and they need to be accompanied by concrete forms of support to meet their critical needs, including specialised health care and psychosocial and economic support.
Once these needs are met and we look towards wider reparation, the process must be flexible and informed by victims and survivors themselves. It must adapt to the deep trauma they have faced and the bureaucratic problems posed by years of dictatorship – many who were detained no longer have civil identity documents, and are unable to recount the horrific experiences they have suffered. Registering victims cannot be a bureaucratic process, based only on documented evidence and where victims are questioned and potentially retraumatised.
The findings of these consultations were discussed with the Transitional Justice Commission, which expressed interest in following up on victims’ recommendations and continuing work on the policy with survivors. They understand the importance of a prompt reparation policy that can reach victims from all sides, and that survivors must be included at every stage. The consultations will continue, now moving to discussing forms of reparation to address the needs of victims as a result of the violations they have endured, including a need for financial and employment support after years of missed education.
We also need immediate action for those in extreme need. The challenge is significant, but the resilience of victims and survivors, their willingness to participate, and their experience supporting each other offer an opportunity for policymakers to not define reparations alone, but jointly. As one participant mentioned: “we need to be in charge of our support.” Reparation requires survivors to take back the reins and reclaim control of their lives.
Our work in Syria is supported by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GiZ)