Shaking hands: Will the Counter-Terrorism Court’s Ammar Bilal escape accountability?

PARIS — A photo of Syrian Minister of Justice Mazhar al-Wais shaking hands with Judge Ammar Bilal—the former chief prosecutor at the Assad regime’s infamous Counter-Terrorism Court—ignited a firestorm on Syrian social media last week. 

The two men interacted at a meeting al-Wais held with judges and ministry employees on April 8, and the image was posted on the official accounts of the Ministry of Justice. Rumors circulated at the time that Bilal had taken up a new position in the ministry. 

Many Syrians were angered, especially the families of victims and survivors of the Counter-Terrorism Court. Bilal was one of the faces of the former regime’s judicial apparatus, which deposed president Bashar al-Assad weaponized against his opponents.

As chief prosecutor, Bilal is accused of playing a pivotal role in issuing charges that led to the execution of hundreds of detainees during his time at the court. 

Responding to the furor, the Ministry of Justice issued a clarification, saying the handshake was part of protocol at such an event. It was not done with prior knowledge of the judge or his professional background, it said, denying it implied any “leniency or reconciliation” with those involved in violations under the former regime. 

Who is Ammar Bilal? 

Ammar Ghassan Bilal comes from a military family. He is the son of Major General Ghassan Bilal, the head of security for the 4th Division led by Maher al-Assad—the former president’s brother and right-hand man. He is also the grandson of Brigadier General Ali Bilal, a former regime officer. 

Despite a stumbling start as a lawyer, Bilal soon found his way to judicial positions. At an unknown date, he was appointed to an administrative job at Syrian intelligence’s information branch.

When the Counter-Terrorism Court was founded in 2012, Bilal was made chief prosecutor by presidential decree at the recommendation of the minister of justice at the time, according to human rights activist Muhammad al-Abdullah. 

Alongside his work at the court, Bilal held other positions in recent years: head of the Judicial Expertise Office and a member of the justice ministry’s Legislative Department. 

Over the years, Bilal made frequent television and press appearances, during which he sprang to the defense of the Assad regime. He was also active on social media, under the username “Red Phoenix.” 

Role at the Counter-Terrorism Court

The Counter-Terrorism Court was established in 2012 as a special court, created outside constitutional guarantees. It operated under the control of Syrian security services, and its work focused on security reports and directives from the intelligence services, bypassing legal or judicial measures. 

As chief public prosecutor, Bilal was pivotal in issuing thousands of arrest warrants against dissidents, activists, journalists, doctors and others for trials lacking basic standards of justice. 

The Public Prosecution Department consisted of 15 judges appointed by presidential decree. The security services referred cases to the chief prosecutor, Bilal, who in turn assigned cases to judges. 

Bilal “did not hold a conventional judicial post, but an executive position for the policy of political repression,” legal expert and international relations researcher al-Moutassim al-Kilani told Syria Direct. This made him “an accomplice in issuing unjust sentences, including death sentences,” he added. 

In May 2014, pro-regime newspaper al-Watan reported, citing unnamed judicial sources, that the Counter-Terrorism Court had received 30,000 cases, including 300 non-Syrians accused of terrorist acts. At the time, the court had issued around 20 death sentences for murder and sabotage. It had ordered “about 1,500 releases since the start of 2014,” Bilal told the paper.

By October 2020, the court had heard nearly 91,000 cases, according to a report by the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR). 

In the 2014 report, Bilal said the Counter-Terrorism Law—adopted by Assad in 2012—“allowed the public prosecution to charge anyone if it believes there is a connection between them and a terrorist offense.” The “Public Prosecution plays the role of personal prosecution, as society’s protector from crime,” he added. 

“Judges who worked in the terrorism court are responsible for the violations that occurred during their tenure,” al-Kilani said. He cited their hand in “issuing sentences based on confessions extracted under torture, and trials lacking justice and integrity standards.” The court “was used as a tool to suppress political opponents, and issued unfair sentences that are considered violations of the right to a fair trial,” he added. 

As the photo of Bilal and the minister of justice went viral last week, victims published their stories and experiences of detention and arrest at the judge’s order. Among them was Aref al-Shaal, a Syrian lawyer. “I was personally one of his victims in late 2014, after I was transferred to the court from the regional intelligence branch,” al-Shaal wrote in a post on his personal Facebook page. “He charged me, without any evidence, of promoting terrorism.” 

The warrant Bilal issued “requested the maximum penalties be imposed, banned me from travelling and seized my movable and immovable property,” al-Shaal added. 

No alternative to accountability

While Syria’s new administration has announced the dissolution of the Counter-Terrorism Court as part of a “judicial reform” process, the public appearance of figures such as Bilal raises questions about the seriousness of these reforms and the future of transitional justice. 

“Ammar Bilal’s natural place is not in the judicial ranks, but standing before an independent, impartial judiciary that ensures he is held accountable for the serious violations he committed,” al-Kilani said. “Reintegrating judges involved in serious violations raises questions about the commitment of the [current] judiciary to the principles of justice and accountability.” 

The justice minister greeting Bilal “could be interpreted as an implicit acquittal, disregarding his previous role at the terrorism court,” he added. “This behavior sends negative messages that the authorities are not serious about holding perpetrators accountable.” 

These messages undermine citizens’ trust in the judicial system and “obstruct transitional justice efforts,” al-Kilani added. This contradicts the “principle of accountability and responsibility that leads to reparation for victims and their relatives, and hinders the peacebuilding process in Syria. 

He called on the Damascus government to follow “legal mechanisms to hold implicated judges accountable, including [conducting] independent judicial investigations, forming fact-finding committees and activating the role of the public prosecutor to prosecute those involved.” 

In February, the Ministry of Justice referred 87 Counter-Terrorism Court judges for investigation. “How effective these measures are depends on the degree of judicial independence and the will to hold perpetrators accountable,” al-Kilani said 

Al-Kilani emphasized the need for “fundamental reforms in the judicial system—strengthening its independence, activating accountability mechanisms and abolishing the extraordinary courts the interim constitutional declaration referred to.” 

The continued presence of figures involved in past violations in their positions “undermines the concept of transitional justice, hinders national reconciliation and degrades confidence in judicial institutions,” he added.Transitional justice “requires real commitment to holding officials accountable, reforming the judiciary and ensuring the past is not repeated by strengthening the rule of law and respect for human rights.”

This report was originally published in Arabic and translated into English by Mateo Nelson.