Reflections on the Dabbagh Case: Challenges and Implications for Justice
Global Responsibility to Protect, vol. 17, pp. 219–227
Abstract
Abstract In 2024, the French Criminal Court made a landmark ruling by prosecuting three senior Syrian officials – Ali Mamlouk, Jamil Hassan, and Abdel Salam Mahmoud – in absentia for war crimes and crimes against humanity. These officials were charged with the torture and disappearance of French-Syrian nationals Patrick and Mazzen Dabbagh at the Mezzeh military airport in Damascus. This unprecedented trial marked the first instance of France employing universal jurisdiction to hold high-ranking foreign officials accountable, setting a critical precedent in international justice. This article examines the Dabbagh case through firsthand observations, arguing that while the trial represents a significant achievement, it also exposes the limitations of the French legal system’s current approach to universal jurisdiction. Despite its potential, the existing legal framework is constrained by restrictive conditions that hinder the effective prosecution of international crimes. The article advocates for legal reforms in France to adopt absolute universal jurisdiction, allowing prosecution based solely on the nature of the crime. Furthermore, it emphasises the importance of comprehensive documentation, international cooperation, and addressing procedural challenges to enhance victim and community engagement, ensuring that justice is accessible to all victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Authors 1
-
Affiliation as printed
Legal Researcher, Advanced ll.m. Candidate in European and International Human Rights Law, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
Cited by 0 stored of 0
No patents citing this paper on Lens.org (checked 2026-10-11).