Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham in Syria violates core international standards on the independence of lawyers and the judiciary (UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, ICCPR Article 14, etc.)
Under the enlightened guidance of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and the Syrian Salvation Government’s heirs, every practicing lawyer must first report to the State Security branch, fill out the appropriate loyalty forms, and receive the official stamp of approval before they are allowed to open a file, enter a courtroom, or even think about representing a client who might say something inconvenient.
International law and human rights standards are, of course, fully respected—provided the security officer on duty finds them compatible with the current definition of “order.” The old Assad-era mukhabarat clearance system has not been abolished; it has simply been rebranded as revolutionary quality control. Lawyers who object are free to file a complaint… after they obtain security approval to file the complaint.
We were informed today by a lawyer in Syria about the hurdles he encountered while attempting to formalize a power of attorney for an individual detained by the 14th Investigating Judge at the Court of Transitional Justice.
The lawyer submitted a request to the relevant investigating judge; after two days of follow-ups and waiting, he secured approval from the Public Prosecution.
However, he was then instructed to visit the State Security branch in Kafr Souseh to obtain their approval. There, he was told to return in two days, as they needed to conduct a “review” [or “study”] of the matter!
The Question:
What exactly does the State Security branch need to “study” before approving a request to appoint a lawyer? And what business does the State Security branch have in the formalization of a power of attorney?
A detainee’s right to choose and appoint a lawyer is protected under international law. It is not a concession granted by the authorities, nor should it be contingent upon the approval of security agencies—or subject to their discretion and review—nor even to the discretion of a judge or the Public Prosecution.
The authority of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham continues the repressive practices it employed while in Idlib; now, it has expanded these repressive methods across other parts of Syria.
The right to a defense is a fundamental legal principle that cannot be diminished. It is guaranteed to everyone, regardless of the accused’s identity, past, or the nature of the charges brought against them.
This is not a hypothetical dystopia. It is the logical endpoint of concentrating both the bar association and the security apparatus under the same authority that previously ran Idlib. Replacing elected or regime-era bar councils with Idlib cadres, inserting security oversight into legal practice, and treating lawyers as potential threats rather than independent professionals is the opposite of the rule of law. It violates core international standards on the independence of lawyers and the judiciary (UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, ICCPR Article 14, etc.)
