The Global Insight interview: Robert Petit
Head of the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism Investigating Serious Crimes in Syria (IIIM), Robert Petit has devoted his life to international justice in Cambodia, Sierra Leone and Rwanda. He tells the IBA’s Director of Content, James Lewis, about his hopes for justice following the fall of Assad.
James Lewis (JL): You’ve been in post since 2024, so what are the headline achievements so far?
Robert Petit (RP): I have to say that IIIM achieved a lot of milestones before I joined it. Since then, I think it’s fair to say that with the events in December 2024, with the fall of the Assad regime, one of the main takeaways is how we were able [to adapt] and are adapting to this new reality to meet the moment, in addition to continuing the work that IIIM has been doing for the last almost ten years, which is supporting justice for Syrians in jurisdictions that have been prosecuting these cases. And again, being ready to meet the moment in Syria, if that happens, with substantive justice.
JL: You’ve talked about people being at the heart of the approach. What does that mean in practice?
RP: We have a victim-centred approach in everything that we do and that’s something that in this field, we’ve learned over the years to focus on and to use as a bedrock, because that’s how you get engagement. That’s how we get credibility. Being attuned to their priorities, their experience, obviously, [and] their needs for justice and what it represents to them − that’s something that’s been invaluable. We’ve learned the hard way over the years. It’s part of our DNA, but it is also something that nobody has done as well until we came along.
JL: Are there aspects of that people-centered approach that are unique to Syria?
RP: One of the unique characteristics of the conflict was all these diaspora organisations or individuals as well, who documented the atrocities. Up until Ukraine, I think it’s fair to say that the Syrian conflict was probably the best documented conflict in recent memory, and Syrians are themselves some of the best documenters of mass atrocities that I’ve ever come across. One particularity has been our relationship with these organisations and these individuals, not only in terms of collecting evidence, but that’s a major part of it because we did not have access to Syria. And those 300 or so terabytes of data that we’ve accumulated here in Geneva, a lot of it comes from their efforts, sometimes at the cost of their own lives. So that has been really a particularity of the work.
The Syrian conflict was probably the best documented conflict in recent memory, and Syrians are themselves some of the best documenters of mass atrocities that I've ever come across
JL: Can you give us a sense of the scale of the atrocities in Syria since 2011?
RP: It’s hard to fathom sometimes, but at the very least, I think everyone agrees that at least 500,000 people were killed during the 15 years of the conflict. At least 150,000 disappeared, but probably closer to double that. One of the tragedies was in December 2024 when the prisons were opened, everybody expected to see these tens of thousands of people walk out. That did not come to pass. [There were] thousands of sexual violence victims and probably tens of thousands easily, and over a thousand victims of chemical weapons, mostly women and children. It’s really a mind-boggling conflict in terms of victims.
JL: One of the real issues under the Assad regime was the judiciary with hundreds of judges overseeing the notorious terrorism courts. Is that part of your remit? Is that a specific focus or just another part of a huge project?
Residents gather in a street after Friday prayers to celebrate the arrest of Amjad Yousef, a key suspect in the 2013 Tadamon massacre, in Tadamon, Syria, 24 April 2026. REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
RP: As with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and other instances, you had a state that used every part of the apparatus to commit crimes. So, the judiciary was not there to dispense justice. It was just part of the repressive state. So, our focus in terms of the courts, the terrorism courts, the field courts, is really to see how we can put that particular aspect of it in the case-building, using their own files. I remember when I was in Damascus in December 2024, two weeks after the fall of the regime − I saw these files, thousands of files actually, in the corridors of the Ministry of Justice, that had been saved by the new authorities. And you open one of these files and it’s ten, 15 pictures, individuals who were obviously tortured to death, and each with their own certificate of cardiac arrest, and each with a judgement and the judge who had passed the sentence and so on. That’s our focus, to use all of that information, to sift through all of it, or to help the Syrians sift through and to eventually build the best cases.
JL: You described the fall of the Assad regime as a fundamental change and that it was going to give you access to crime scenes in a way you hadn’t had before, at least in theory. Has that been the case in practice?
RP: In theory is somewhat right. Since I was there for the first time in December 2024, I’ve been asking, as have UN Member States, to have access to the territory to be able to conduct our work and our mandate. So far, we haven’t been fully granted access or permission to open an office. But because of our engagements with the authorities over these past 18 months, we finally were able in February to conduct the first investigation in Syria on behalf of a jurisdiction that has asked us to document a detention centre and produce a 3D model for their own trial, which we did.
So, we conducted the survey with a team of investigators alongside Syrians, which is what I prefer, and what I have endeavoured to do. And we’ve talked, we’ve taken over a thousand pictures and some hours of video and we’re going to render our own 3D model that we are going to share with the senior authority so that when they do their own trials, they will have this wonderful tool that they can put in front of the witnesses, the victims and the accused and really relay that sense to the judges. We’re hoping to be able to continue this support for jurisdictions. So being able to carry out in Syria investigations that the jurisdictions want us to do for their own cases, that is something that the Syrian authorities will see the value in as they have for this one. And we’re hoping to be able to engage further – that is one ‘line of business’ that we’re hoping will allow us to be incrementally present there.
JL: You started your answer by saying ‘in theory’ is the key. That’s ongoing. You’re feeling the need to persuade Syrians on the ground that this is something that they should be engaging with and supporting and will help them ultimately.
RP: Well, not Syrians per se, because I think certainly in the diaspora, obviously we have access now to the Syrians themselves, the population, but the new Syrian government. I think it’s fair to say that the perception of the UN in general with the new authorities is not great. It’s not uncommon because you have the UN system that has to deal with the authorities in power to be able to deliver food and aid and everything, so you make accommodations with the power in place, which was the same in Syria. But for this group, obviously, the perception is somewhat negative. And we were not part of the UN, obviously, [we were a] country team before, we never had access to Syria before. As with other UN entities that did not have access before, the government, we’ve been told, wants to make sure that our presence and our work in the country would contribute to their vision of whatever field and in particular accountability. It’s something that we understand and we're working with. I’m grateful for the support of Member States who have asked the Syrian government to grant us access, repeatedly, in various forms and I’m sure we’ll continue to do so.
I'm grateful for the support of Member States who have asked the Syrian government to grant us access, repeatedly, in various forms
JL: I interviewed the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court relatively recently and he talked about the importance of delivering justice at the speed of relevance. Are you mindful of groups on the ground in Syria taking things into their own hands in terms of retaliation and retribution? I wonder if that puts you under pressure in some way to work at speed.
RP: Yes, one would hope to because people will maybe think twice. And first of all, you’re talking about a country that is awash with weapons, right? There is means everywhere. And it’s been the main driver of hostilities, aside from the major flare points. Just a few weeks ago, there was an incident between a Christian shopkeeper and a Sunni client that degenerated into two days of rioting. So, things can go wrong very quickly. And it’s certainly something that we’re aware of, but our contribution I think is more significant in terms of pushing for a fully-fledged transitional justice process, because that’s when people will maybe step back from taking that decision, right? When they see that there is hope for justice, that there is something that could happen without endangering them or their families, they may wait. And that’s what I’ve been trying to convey. The first time I met the Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Asaad Hassan al-Shaibani, was in Berlin at the Security Conference, and it was the first thing he told me. He said, ‘we know we need transitional justice because otherwise people will take justice into their own hands’. Our contribution is really to try and make this a process that’s implemented as best as possible and as fast as possible.
JL: You’ve made clear that transitional justice needs to be led and owned by Syrians. The Syrian government has established the National Commission for Transitional Justice. This suggests really quite significant progress, is that right?
RP: Well, the fact is, however, that the transitional justice law is still not finalised. And to become law, it has to be passed by the People’s Assembly, which is still not fully formed or sitting. There’s still a process. We don’t know exactly what the final version of the transitional justice law is going to look like. Importantly, it has to really focus on all crimes and all perpetrators. It has to therefore be comprehensive. I think that’s one of the main focuses of our comments from civil society and victim survivors. As I said in my speech at the UN General Assembly, one very well-known Syrian activist has two brothers who were [forcibly] disappeared, one by the regime and one by ISIS. She’s not going to pick which one matters, and she should not be asked to. There should be a comprehensive aspect to the transitional justice law – we’ll see, and it has to be passed, and then it has obviously to be resourced appropriately. So, there’s been progress, but you’re talking about a generational process here. Rwanda is still doing trials after what, 32 years? You have to also keep that in mind. But there have been some concrete steps taken. So hopefully we can help move it along.
In the history of the UN, I don't think there's a body that could potentially contribute in such a way to criminal accountability for mass atrocities. But we will need the resources
JL: Is it fair to say that military action in the region as a whole is unhelpful or does that not have an impact? I’m obviously talking about America’s attack on Iran.
RP: It’s obviously a hindrance because if you’re going to be able to account for all these crimes and what has happened before, first of all, you don’t want to add to the caseload by having more crimes potentially being committed and having to document those and account for them. But it also prevents you rebuilding the structure that allows for access and public documentation and again, case-building and eventual prosecution and trials. So yes, of course it has a negative impact.
JL: Just to be clear, the investigative work goes back to the period of the Arab Spring in 2011. That’s the start point – there’s no end point.
RP: There is no end point. We have the jurisdiction from March 2011 and it’s an open mandate and the Mechanism is not renewed every year like the Commission of Inquiry or other mechanisms. We have an open mandate, a commitment of Member States for justice for Syria and it is something that we are of course very mindful of, and keep focus on, that we have this open mandate that is relevant for events at this point.
Justice has a long memory in my experience, and victims, survivors, don't forget
JL: Since the Mechanism was established, it’s gathered a huge amount of data, receiving over 500 requests for assistance from 17 jurisdictions…
RP: 560 as of today [28 April 2026]. They’re still coming in and every year they increase exponentially.
JL: And yet there is a $7.5m funding gap in 2026. You’ve called for an increase in contributions. I’m just wondering if those are forthcoming; whether that gap’s closing?
RP: Well, we were very happy to hear Germany announce an additional $1m contribution. And we’re hoping Member States contribute voluntarily. I hope that’s the case, because indeed, we’re facing a very difficult time. To explain: we have a budget from the UN regular budget. So, every year we get funded by contribution of Member States to the general budget. Because of the liquidity crisis we’re facing, I will get probably in 2026 about 65 per cent of what I actually need or should get on the books. And the voluntary contributions have been diminishing, and that $7.5m is what it actually now is. And we have several posts, obviously dozens of posts that are dependent on these voluntary contributions in addition to the regular budget-funded posts. And it’s almost cynical because it’s at a point where the mandate could be fully realised. Syria now could be a real success story in terms of the UN impact on transitional justice and certain criminal accountability. At the same time, it’s when we have the least resources we’ve ever had. Obviously, we have a lot of political support and we’re hoping that this is going to also translate into additional funding at this particular moment. I believe that the window is still open for accountability, for transitional justice in a substantial way, but a lot of things can take priority and I think it’s going to take every stakeholder to keep that window open, and to have a successful transitional justice process. For the IIIM to be able to contribute in the way it can and is uniquely placed to – at least in the history of the UN, I don’t think there’s a body that could potentially contribute in such a way to criminal accountability for mass atrocities – we will need the resources.
JL: Where does Bashar al-Assad figure in your thinking? Can you foresee a scenario where he is held to account for the atrocities in Syria in a meaningful way?
RP: Well, when we got to Cambodia, it had been 40 years without anything. Justice has a long memory in my experience, and victims, survivors, don’t forget. So this all takes place in a political context. Sometimes an ally or an asset eventually becomes a liability, and individuals that were thought to be scot-free end up having to account. We’ve all seen it in different contexts, so I’m sure that if there is a possibility, there will be accountability for all those, and certainly those most responsible for what happened in Syria.
This is an edited version of the filmed interview, which can be viewed on the IBA’s website: ibanet.org/Interview-with-Robert-Petit