Following Bashar al-Asad's assumption of the office of president of the Syrian Arab Republic in July 2000, there were some promising signs of improvement of the country's human rights record. About 600 political prisoners were released, and the first privately owned newspaper since 1963 was licensed. Independent civic forums emerged and began to function freely. These increasingly popular groups circulated petitions, conducted open meetings, and presented agendas for political reform, while pro-democracy advocates began preparations to launch independent political parties. The civic forums invigorated a political scene that had remained one-dimensional for over thirty years, with the exception of unauthorized political groups that were forced to operate clandestinely and met with harsh repression.
This welcome opening of political space in Syria suffered a serious setback in February 2001 when authorities responded to the groundswell of peaceful political activity with a clampdown on the country's civic forums. According to parliament member Riad Seif, the organizer of one of the groups, authorities informed leaders of the forums that meetings could no longer be held without prior government permission. Such overt government interference with the exercise of the right to peaceful freedom of assembly and association is a troubling development and a disappointing throwback to the pattern of violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that was pervasive during the long tenure of former President Hafez al-Asad. On February 20, Human Rights Watch called for an immediate reversal of the government's move to control the activities of the nascent civic groups. If this restriction remains in place at the time of Syria's review, the Human Rights Committee should highlight it in discussions with Syrian government representatives and strongly urge that the right of peaceful assembly and association be upheld and publicly guaranteed.
In the sections that follow, the concerns of Human Rights Watch are summarized with respect to five issues:
* stripping Syrian political exiles and their families, including children, of the right to maintain or obtain Syrian nationality.
* discriminatory treatment of Syria-born Kurds, including children, of the right to a nationality.
* discrimination against women under the personal status law and penal code.
* accountability for violations of the right to life and other gross human rights abuses.
* violations of freedom of association.
1. Denial of Rights to Syrian Political Exiles
Violations of Articles 6, 12, 24, and 26.
The Human Rights Committee should raise with the Syrian government the plight of Syrian political exiles and their families. An undetermined number of Syrians fled the country during the harsh repression of the 1980s and some of them continue to live in difficult circumstances abroad due to government policies and practices that deny them Syrian passports. For example, the names of known or suspected members of the Muslim Brotherhood reportedly are recorded on so-called black lists, making it impossible for these individuals to obtain new passports at Syrian embassies abroad following the expiration of the old documents. This practice has left entire families, including children, without documentation of their Syrian nationality.
In addition, Syrian exiles in Jordan reported to Human Rights Watch in 1999 that the names of children born to political exiles abroad are not entered in Syria's civil status register, making it impossible for these children, some of whom are now adults, to obtain Syrian passports and thus depriving them of legal recognition of their Syrian nationality. At a meeting in Amman with nine Syrian women who were the wives or widows of political exiles, Human Rights Watch documented that among them the women had seventy-seven sons and daughters living outside Syria who could not obtain Syrian passports and were stateless.
With respect to the rights of children, the government in its Second Periodic report to the Committee specifically noted that Syrian law provides for Syrian nationality for any child born outside the country to a Syrian Arab father. The report cited article 3 of the Syrian Nationality Act, which states in pertinent part: "The following persons shall be deemed, ipso facto, to be Syrian Arabs: (a) Anyone born in or outside the country to a Syrian Arab father. (In this case, the person is entitled to Syrian Arab nationality even if the birth was not entered in the Syrian Arab registers)". This provision of the nationality law provides straightforward legal guidance concerning the right of the children of Syrian political exiles to obtain Syrian nationality.
The denial of passports for political reasons, especially for family members of exiles who wish to return to Syria, constitutes arbitrary deprivation of the right to enter one's own country and thus a violation of article 12.4 of the ICCPR. The effective denial of passports to the children of political exiles violates articles 24 and 26 of the covenant in that it discriminates against these children and denies them the right to acquire Syrian nationality. In addition, the refusal of authorities to renew upon expiration the passports of known or perceived political opponents is a violation of the provisions of article 26 of the ICCPR, which specifically prohibits discrimination on the grounds of political or other opinion.
Another issue of concern is legislation still in force in Syria that prescribes the death penalty for any person who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, pursuant to article 10 of Act No. 49 of July 8, 1980. This legislation should be repealed as mere membership in any organization, without regard to an individual's personal actions or omissions, should not be punishable by death. In addition, international standards with respect to countries that maintain capital punishment recommend that the death penalty should be imposed only for the most serious and intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences. Article 6.2 of the Covenant specifically provides that in countries where the death penalty has not been abolished, capital punishment should be imposed "only for the most serious crimes."
2. Discrimination against Syria-Born Kurds
Violations of Articles 24, 26 and 27.
The government states in paragraph 354 of its report that all persons "enjoy equal rights before the law, without distinction of any kind, such as national, ethnic or social origin, colour, gender, language, religion, opinion, property, birth or other status." It also claims in paragraph 355 that: "The phenomenon of discrimination is unknown in the country's history and is totally alien to its society." In light of these unequivocal statements, the Human Rights Committee should carefully question the Syrian government about the denial of nationality of some Syria-born Kurds and their children. The impact of enforced statelessness on successive generations of Kurdish children merits special attention and remedial action is long overdue.
Kurds are the largest non-Arab ethnic minority in Syria, comprising about 8.5 to 10 percent of the population. The origin of the stateless Syrian Kurds is traced back to 1962, when an exceptional government census carried out in Hasakeh governorate in northeastern Syria stripped an estimated 120,000 Syrian Kurds -- 20 percent of the Syrian Kurdish population -- of their Syrian citizenship. As a result of the special census, which was ordered pursuant to an August 1962 decree, these Kurds and their families were left stateless, with no claim to another nationality. The census was one component of a comprehensive plan to "Arabize" the resources-rich northeastern part of the country, an area with the largest concentration of non-Arabs in Syria. Kurdish residents had to prove that they had lived in Syria at least since 1935 or lose any claim to Syrian citizenship. By many accounts, the census was carried out in an arbitrary manner.
According to the Syrian government's own statistics provided to Human Rights Watch in 1996, there were 142,465 stateless Kurds in Syria. These Kurds, who have no claim to a nationality other than Syrian, have been arbitrarily denied the right to Syrian nationality in violation of international law. They do not have the option of relocating to another country because Syrian authorities do not issue them passports or other internationally recognized travel documents.
Stateless Syrian-born Kurds fall into one of two categories: the ajanib ("foreigners") and the maktumeen ("unregistered"). The Syrian government said in July 1996 that the Kurdish "foreigners" numbered 67,465. They have been issued special identity cards by the ministry of interior and, pursuant to discriminatory state policy, are denied many rights which other Syrians enjoy. They are not entitled to passports and thus cannot legally leave and return to their own country. They are not permitted to own land, housing or businesses, and do not have the right to vote in elections or referenda, or run for public office. They cannot be employed at government agencies and state-owned enterprises; cannot practice as doctors or engineers; and are denied admission to public hospitals. They may not legally marry Syrian citizens; if they do so, the marriages are not legally recognized.
The government also revealed in July 1996 that another 75,000 Kurds -- including a significant but thus-far undocumented number of children -- were maktumeen. They are not issued identity cards or other official documentation of their identities. Like the Kurdish "foreigners," the maktumeen are not issued passports or other documents. Maktumeen are not permitted to study beyond the ninth grade because they are issued inferior documents by the education ministry that are not officially recognized. When children are born to Syrian Kurdish men who are maktumeen, the children become maktumeen as well. Due to the high birth rate of Kurds, the number of maktumeen will only continue to grow exponentially unless the problem is addressed.
Paragraph 330 of the government's report make clear that under Syrian nationality law there is no reason for Kurdish children born in Syria to be denied citizenship. It states:
"Every child born in Syria has the right to acquire the nationality of his or her parents as a right based on blood affiliation if the child's father is known, as a right based on both blood and territorial affiliation if the child's mother is Syrian and the father is unknown, or as a right based solely on territorial affiliation if the child's parents are unknown or if, although known, they are unable to pass their nationality on to the child."
The report also cites provisions of the Syrian Nationality Act, including article 3(c) which stipulates that "[a]nyone born inside the country to parents who are unknown, of unknown nationality or stateless" shall be deemed, ipso facto, to be a Syrian Arab. Article 3(c) therefore specifically addresses the situation of Syria-born Kurdish children whose parents remain stateless because they are categorized as "foreigners" or "unregistered."
The Human Rights Committee should recommend that the Syrian government take immediate steps to redress the stateless status of all Kurds who were born in Syria, and offer citizenship to all Kurds with strong ties to Syria by reason of birth, marriage, or long residence in the country and who are not otherwise entitled to citizenship in other countries. It should further recommend that the Syrian government ensure that every child born in Syria has the right to acquire a nationality and is not stateless. Syrian authorities should be encouraged to establish fair, open and transparent administrative and other procedures for restoring and granting citizenship to Syria-born Kurds, and ensure that decisions resulting from such procedures are subject to administrative review.
3. Discrimination against Women
Violations of Articles 2, 3, 23(2), and 26.
The government's report states in paragraph 34 that the rights safeguarded in the Syrian constitution apply to all citizens, regardless of gender. It concludes that Syrian legislation does not discriminate between the sexes "since women, in the capacity as members of society, enjoy the same constitutional, legal and political rights as men." But examination of the personal status law pertaining to Muslims and the penal code indicate explicit discrimination based on gender.
Personal Status Law No. 34 of 1975 -- the relevant legislation for Syrian Muslims, the large majority of the population -- contains discriminatory provisions with respect to the contract of marriage, rights during marriage, and divorce. For example, unlike a man, an adult woman cannot contract her own marriage but must have a male guardian do so on her behalf (article 21). If a woman over the age of seventeen concludes her marriage without a guardian, he can demand the annulment of the contract if the chosen husband is not of the same social standing as the wife, and as long as the wife is not pregnant (articles 27, 29, and 30). No such restrictions on legal capacity apply to men.
The minimum age for marriage is eighteen for boys and seventeen for girls (article 16). However, a judge can waive these provisions, and allow marriages of minors, boys at fifteen and girls at thirteen (article 18.1), if their fathers consent (article 18.2). Finally, Muslim women may not marry a non-Muslim, while Muslim men have much greater freedom to choose a spouse, pursuant to article 48.2.
The law also assigns different rights and responsibilities for women and men during marriage. The husband is required to provide maintenance and accommodation to his wife (article 71), whereas the wife owes her husband obedience (article 74). A wife's "disobedience" and working outside the house without her husband's permission lead to forfeiture of maintenance (articles 73 and 74). In addition, a man may legally have up to four wives simultaneously, while a woman may only be married to one man (article 17).
This discriminatory pattern extends to dissolution of marriages. Article 91 of the personal status law provides for the unilateral and unconditional right of a husband to effect divorce by repudiation (talaq), whereas women must sue for divorce in court. A wife wishing divorce must prove that her husband neglected his marital duties, while a man can divorce without stating a reason much less proving it (articles 105-115).
Discrimination against women in Syria's penal code is linked to discriminatory provisions in the personal status law, particularly its definition of marriage in article 1 as "a contract between a man and a woman who is lawfully permitted to him". Accordingly, under the penal code a woman convicted of adultery faces a prison sentence of three months to two years, while the sentence for a man ranges from one month to one year (articles 473.1 and 474). Also based on the definition of marriage as a husband's exclusive right to his wife's body and her obedience, the penal code does not recognize marital rape as a criminal offense.
The committee should note that violence against women is underreported in Syria, and the government maintains no statistics. The personal status law does little to help women who wish to part from violent husbands, and several provisions of the penal code condone male violence against women, including so-called honor crimes, by reducing or eliminating penalties for these crimes. Article 548.1 states that he "who surprises his spouse or one of his ascendants or descendants or his sister committing adultery or illegitimate sexual acts with another person and he unintentionally kills or injures one or both of them benefits from an exemption of penalty." Article 548.2 states that the "perpetrator of homicide or injury shall benefit from a reduction in penalty if he surprises his spouse or one of his ascendants, descendants or sister in a suspicious state with another."
The government reiterates in paragraph 358 of its report to the committee that Syria's constitution and laws "guarantee the enjoyment by all citizens, without distinction, of the rights recognized in the ICCPR." The discriminatory laws described above are clearly not in conformity with the letter and spirit of article 3 of the ICCPR, which guarantees equal civil and political rights to men and women. The committee should recommend that the government take steps to ensure that women have equality under Syrian law, and accordingly amend the discriminatory provisions of the personal status law and penal code to bring these statutes into legal harmony with the rights of women guaranteed in the ICCPR.
4. Arbitrary Deprivation of the Right to Life and Other Gross Human Rights Abuses
Violation of Article 6, 7, 9.
Among the issues the committee has proposed to discuss in consideration of Syria's report are the measures the government has taken to investigate allegations of extrajudicial executions, "disappearances," torture, and arbitrary detention by members of the army or any other security forces. Human Rights Watch believes that the present government must carry out independent and fully transparent investigations of past human rights abuses and hold accountable those who were responsible for, ordered, or condoned the commission of gross violations of international law.
The investigations should encompass abuses that occurred in Syria as well as those committed on Lebanese soil where Syrian forces had effective control or still maintain undefined and presumably extralegal powers of arrest and detention. The committee should request an explanation from the Syrian government of the bilateral agreements or treaties which permit residents of Lebanon to be secretly taken into custody without due process of law, transferred across the Lebanon-Syria international border, and held in detention centers or prisons in Syria without notification of family members or lawyers.
In addition to thousands of individual cases of abuse -- including those of Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians and other foreign nationals who remain "disappeared" -- the committee should focus attention on mass summary executions carried out by Syrian military, paramilitary, and security forces. Among these was the massacre on June 27, 1980 at Tadmor prison, which followed the attempted assassination of then-president Hafez al-Asad in Damascus on June 26. According to authoritative accounts, two units of the Defense Brigades were mobilized and dispatched to Tadmor prison by helicopter from Mezze airport in Damascus. About sixty men from the force reportedly entered the prison in the early morning hours of June 27 and slaughtered an estimated 500 to 1,000 prisoners in the facility's dormitories. (The late French writer and Syria expert Michel Seurat quoted in his 1989 work L'Etat de Barbarie a Syrian intelligence report which stated that the number killed was 1,181.) Most of the victims were believed to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the group that Syrian authorities believed was responsible for the attack on the president a day earlier.
5. Restrictions on Freedom of Association
Violation of Article 22.
Citing article 26 of the constitution, the government's report states that every citizen has the right to participate in the country's political life. Yet in contravention of article 22 of the ICCPR people in Syria do not have the right to form political parties despite the claim put forth in paragraph 309 of the government's report that "[t]he right to form political parties is inviolable." Membership and participation in political parties in Syria is narrowly limited to the ruling Arab Ba'th Socialist Party and the five smaller parties that comprise with the Ba'th party the National Progressive Front.
There have been indications that the government may be considering reforms in this area, which the Human Rights Committee should encourage. For example, on January 29, 2001, member of parliament Riad Seif said: "We have been promised a few months ago that a parties law would be passed in the near future.... [Syrian] Vice President Mr. Abdel-Halim Khaddam promised us that the law would be passed and we look forward to that." Seif, who disclosed that he was preparing the groundwork for his own Social Peace party, added: "We look forward to seeing the law clean from restrictions and limitations because all Syrians should have the same rights as long as they are conducting a peaceful and national political work."
But the subsequent clampdown on the country's independent civic forms in February 2001, including the group organized and hosted by Riad Seif, raises deep concerns about the depth of the government's tolerance of freedom of association if peaceful civic groups are no longer permitted to hold meetings without prior government authorization. The committee should condemn the stifling of emerging civil society organizations in Syria and urge the government to maximize, not diminish, opportunities for individuals to express and share ideas and information in association and private or public assembly with others.
The committee should also recommend that the government establish clear and transparent legal and administrative procedures to facilitate the formation of political parties and protection of their independence from executive branch interference or harassment.
The committee should further inquire about freedom of association with respect to legal status for independent nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Syria, including human rights organizations. Paragraph 307 of the government's report notes that the Private Associations and Institutions Act No. 93 of 1958, as amended, places "restrictions" on "the establishment of such associations in order to protect public safety, national security, public order, public health and morals and the rights of others" similar to the restrictions "placed on exercise of the right of peaceful assembly in order to protect the public interest." The report cites article 2 of Law No. 93, which states: "Any association which is established for an illicit reason or purpose, or which contravenes the law or the moral code, or the purpose of which is to prejudice the integrity or form of the republican government shall be null and void". The government should be asked how such vague and sweeping language in the statute can be reconciled with the right to freedom of association, particularly for critics of the government who may wish to organize nongovernmental organizations.
With respect to human rights defenders in Syria, the committee should condemn the unfair March 1992 trial before the supreme state security court that resulted in the criminal conviction and sentencing of ten leaders and activists from the Committees for the Defense of Democratic Freedoms and Human Rights in Syria (CDF) to prison terms of five to ten years for activities that amounted to the peaceful exercise of freedom of expression and association. The harsh sentences effectively quashed the country's nascent human rights movement. With the release in November 2000 of two CDF activists who were sentenced to nine years, the remaining imprisoned CDF member is 39-year-old journalist and writer Nizar Nayouf, who was sentenced to ten years, the longest term imposed on any of the defendants. The committee should recommend Nayouf's immediate and unconditional release. He reportedly continues to be held in solitary confinement in Mezze military prison and suffers from serious medical problems, some of them related to torture under interrogation following his arrest in January 1991. On May 3, 2000, Mr. Nayouf was awarded the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize, and has received human rights awards from other international organizations while serving his long prison sentence.
