Syria Tries Former Mufti Hassoun: Accountability for Legitimizing Violence?

The trial of Ahmad Badruddin Hassoun, the former Grand Mufti of Syria, before the Fourth Criminal Court in Damascus presents a complex legal and ethical dilemma: how to assess responsibility for legitimizing violence when an individual has not directly committed violent acts.

Hassoun's alleged role in mass atrocities is not based on him wielding a weapon or issuing operational orders. Instead, prosecutors focus on his public speeches, his official capacity, and the symbolic power vested in his religious office. This approach probes the boundaries of accountability in cases of widespread human rights abuses.

The proceedings raise significant questions about the Syrian judiciary's ability to handle such nuanced accusations. The core conceptual challenge lies in prosecuting individuals who mobilize perpetrators through discourse and institutional authority, thereby providing legitimacy to violence and potentially stripping certain civilian groups of legal and moral protections, without the trial devolving into a political spectacle.

This case is grounded in principles of international criminal law, which recognize that systems perpetrating atrocities involve not only direct perpetrators but also those who provide ideological and institutional backing. However, proving such indirect contributions is notoriously difficult, making Hassoun's trial a critical test of how these complex theories of responsibility are applied in practice.