A Legal Reading in Light of the Trial of Former Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun
The trial of former Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun raises a question that goes beyond the individual defendant and reaches the heart of transitional justice in Syria: when does the speech of a person holding religious or official authority remain political expression, and when does it become incitement, encouragement, or moral support capable of grounding individual criminal responsibility?
Public hearings began on 25 June 2026 in proceedings that, according to the prosecution, include allegations of inciting and justifying killing. At the 23 July hearing, the prosecution submitted digital material, while the defence requested technical verification of the recordings and their sources. The case remains pending before the court. The presumption of innocence therefore continues to apply, and an accusation must not be treated as a judgment in advance.
Responsibility Does Not Arise from Office or Political Loyalty Alone
Holding senior office or demonstrating loyalty to a government that committed crimes is not, by itself, enough to establish criminal responsibility. Domestic and international criminal law are founded on individual responsibility: the specific act or statement attributed to the accused must be identified; the required knowledge and intent must be proved; and the legal and factual link between the accused’s contribution and the crime must be demonstrated.
The Nuremberg trials illustrate the importance of this distinction. Julius Streicher was convicted after a sustained propaganda campaign calling for the persecution and extermination of Jews while the crimes were being committed and while he knew of them. Hans Fritzsche, by contrast, was acquitted because the evidence did not sufficiently establish that his broadcasts amounted to criminal incitement or contributed to the crimes in a manner warranting conviction. The lesson is clear: the repugnant character of speech, or the speaker’s proximity to power, cannot replace proof of the elements of criminal responsibility.
Not Every Extremist Statement Is Criminal Incitement
Speech may be shocking, discriminatory, or morally reprehensible without automatically constituting an international crime. Legal assessment does not stop at the words themselves; it places them in context. Who spoke? To whom? When? What was happening on the ground? Were the words direct and specific, or general and ambiguous? Was the audience capable of acting on them?
International jurisprudence—including the ICTR’s Media cases and the proceedings involving singer Simon Bikindi—confirms that context, wording, audience, and intent are decisive. A single statement may be highly dangerous if delivered amid mass violence to an armed audience, while a body of ideological rhetoric, however disturbing, may still be insufficient unless its legal connection to a crime is proved.
What Gives Speech Criminal Significance?
- The specific words used: Did they contain a clear order, exhortation, or justification for violence?
- The identity of the audience: Was the speech directed at forces, agencies, or groups capable of carrying it out?
- The timing: Was the statement made before, during, or after the crime?
- The speaker’s authority: What official or religious standing did the speaker possess, and what was the speaker’s actual influence?
- Knowledge: Did the speaker know of the crimes or the likelihood that they would occur?
- Repetition and pattern: Was this an isolated statement or part of a sustained campaign?
- Subsequent conduct: Did killings, displacement, or persecution consistent with the speech follow?
- The effect of the contribution: Did the speech substantially contribute to the commission of the crime or encourage its perpetrators?
What Does the Vojislav Šešelj Case Teach Us?
The case of Serbian politician Vojislav Šešelj is among the leading examples of responsibility arising from speech. In a 1992 address in Hrtkovci, he called for Croats to be removed; threats, violence, and forced departures followed. The international proceedings ultimately resulted in his conviction for instigating deportation, persecution, and forcible transfer because the court did not examine the words in isolation from the speaker’s authority, the audience, the surrounding context, and the consequences.
The precedent does not mean that every mobilising political speech automatically constitutes a crime. It does show, however, that a speaker cannot always shelter behind the label of political opinion when it is proved that the speech was intended to push others toward criminal conduct and contributed to that conduct. The official case record is available through the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals.
Can Speech Amount to Moral Support?
Responsibility may also arise through aiding, encouraging, or providing moral support where that support has a substantial effect on the crime and the person knows that it facilitates the crime. The accused need not personally carry a weapon. A contribution may consist of legitimising criminal conduct, reassuring perpetrators, or strengthening their resolve. Yet this form of responsibility requires precise proof of both impact and knowledge; it cannot be presumed solely from the speaker’s symbolic position.
In the Furundžija Trial Judgment, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia discussed aiding and abetting as encompassing practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support that has a substantial effect on the crime, accompanied by knowledge that the contribution assists its commission.
How Could the Standard Apply to Statements Attributed to Hassoun?
Publicly circulated material attributed to Hassoun includes a 2015 statement in Aleppo in which he urged forces to move from defence to attack, called on civilians to leave, and spoke of destroying the area “to the last part.” If the recording and its context are authenticated, its legal significance would not arise from harsh wording alone. It would depend on three combined considerations: the nature of the audience addressed, the object of the words, and the military and temporal context in which they were delivered.
No legal conclusion should be reached before verifying the original recording, the integrity of its chain of custody, whether it was edited or excerpted, its time and place, the identity of the audience, the meaning of the words in their full context, the accused’s knowledge of events on the ground, the nature of any relationship with alleged perpetrators, and whether later conduct was connected to the speech.
Collecting Speeches Is Not Enough; the Link to a Crime Must Be Proved
The central danger in such cases is turning the proceeding into a trial of the defendant’s entire political history. The judicial task is not to collect the largest possible number of inflammatory statements. It is to identify the underlying crimes alleged to have occurred, their perpetrators, the accused’s specific contribution, the required intent or knowledge, and the manner in which the speech contributed to the crime or strengthened its commission.
If the prosecution cannot prove that link, the speech may remain politically and morally significant and may give rise to other forms of responsibility, but it is insufficient on its own for criminal conviction. If the connection is established through reliable evidence tested in open court, the speaker cannot be exempted merely because he did not personally fire a weapon.
A Fair Trial Is Part of the Victims’ Right to Justice
Protecting the rights of the accused does not contradict the rights of victims. It safeguards the legitimacy of the judgment and prevents transitional justice from becoming retaliation. A professional trial requires:
- Precise charges linking each statement to an identified criminal act.
- Independent forensic examination of recordings and digital evidence.
- Full defence access to the evidence and the ability to challenge it and question witnesses.
- A clear distinction between political, moral, and criminal responsibility.
- Respect for the presumption of innocence throughout the proceedings.
- A defined domestic legal basis for each charge, consistent with legality and the prohibition of retroactive criminalisation.
- A reasoned judgment explaining the assessment of evidence, the elements of the offence, and the defendant’s mode of responsibility.
From this perspective, a defence request for technical examination of recordings is not an obstruction of justice. It is a necessary safeguard for a judgment capable of withstanding legal scrutiny. Reporting on the third hearing noted both the prosecution’s submission of digital materials and the defence request for technical verification.
A Balanced Legal Standard
Two approaches are legally unsound. The first is to convict Hassoun merely because he was regarded as “the former regime’s mufti.” The second is to deny any possibility of responsibility because he did not carry a weapon. Criminal law accepts neither shortcut. The decisive judicial question is whether lawful evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that a specific statement attributable to him, made with the required intent or knowledge, contributed to an identified crime through a recognised mode of responsibility.
This strict standard is neither indulgence toward the accused nor abandonment of victims. It is what distinguishes a trial from political condemnation and gives transitional justice credibility. A pulpit can become an instrument of crime, but that conclusion must be established through evidence open to challenge—not through reputation, impression, or public anger.
Documentation Efforts of the Free Syrian Lawyers Association
The Free Syrian Lawyers Association (FSLA) is monitoring this trial as an important test of the Syrian judiciary’s ability to address responsibility arising from inciting speech through clear legal standards and a fair, public process. FSLA has prepared a legal memorandum examining relevant international jurisprudence as a contribution to public legal debate, without encroaching on the court’s jurisdiction or prejudging the outcome.
FSLA works to document transitional justice trials, collect and clarify their legal sources and terminology, and advocate for judicial independence, public proceedings, and the rights of victims and defendants alike. The purpose is not to produce a predetermined conviction or acquittal, but to support justice grounded in facts, evidence, and law.
