There is an almost ironic, if not tragic, turn when large groups of people flee from conflict. While victims of persecution can find safer places like Europe, perpetrators of such persecution may also find ways to leave their country of origin and evade accountability elsewhere. This is an entirely unintended consequence, as the focus of asylum and immigration policies must remain on victims fleeing conflict and avoid the false assumption that terrorists or other ‘dangerous’ actors are the majority of those seeking asylum (Han, 2022). The circumstances, as has been seen in relation to the Syrian conflict, may result in victims safely settling but then fearing they may see their abusers in the streets. At the same time, many states in the EU are showing a willingness to prosecute those accused of war crimes and torture, providing a degree of justice for victims of torture (Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022).
Most recently, the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court passed a guilty verdict in June 2025 against a Syrian doctor, Alaa M., for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture; he was sentenced to life imprisonment with the court finding “particular severity of guilt” in this case (news sources summarized in Appendix B). Scholarly literature specifically analyzing this very recent judgment is not yet available; early commentary and primary reporting provide the factual record while academic analysis is expected to follow (see Appendix B).
Alaa M. was alleged to have worked in Syrian military hospitals during the early years of the Syrian civil war (2011-2012) and was accused of administering lethal medicines and committing acts of torture and sexual violence; around 2015 he left Syria and entered Germany on a skilled worker visa and practised as an orthopaedic surgeon before his arrest and prosecution (see primary reports in Appendix B). Alaa M.’s case follows several European, primarily German prosecutions through the use of universal jurisdiction, where victims of torture have received some measure of justice through convictions of alleged abusers (Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022; Han, 2022). This process began (in its most prominent form) in October 2019 when charges were filed against two former Syrian officials, Anwar R. and Eyad A., in Germany. Their arrest and subsequent prosecution marked the start of a new era in accountability, utilizing universal jurisdiction to address atrocities committed far beyond European borders (Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022).
The so-called Al‑Khatib trial, conducted at the Koblenz Higher Regional Court from April 2020 to January 2022, was a landmark case prosecuting Syrian war crimes under universal jurisdiction. It targeted two former Syrian intelligence officers, Anwar Raslan and Eyad Al‑Gharib, for crimes against humanity committed at the Al‑Khatib Branch (Branch 251) in Damascus between 2011 and 2012 (Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022; Han, 2022). The trial addressed systematic torture, murder, and sexual violence against detainees during the Syrian civil war’s early phase, and it marked the first global conviction of Syrian officials for such crimes (Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022). The Koblenz proceedings were notable for combining rigorous criminal-law adjudication with survivor-centred testimony drawn from refugees and survivors now living in Europe, a feature repeatedly highlighted in scholarly commentary on universal-jurisdiction trials arising from Syria (Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022; Han, 2022).
In February 2021, Al‑Gharib received a sentence of four-and-a-half years for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity; in January 2022, Raslan was sentenced to life imprisonment for complicity in crimes against humanity, with the court finding particular gravity that precluded early release (Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022).
Subsequent European cases have continued the trend of domestic prosecutions. For example, in February 2023 the Berlin Regional Court convicted Moafak D., a Palestinian‑Syrian former member of a pro‑regime militia, for war crimes and murder connected to events in the Yarmouk refugee camp; he received a life sentence (academic analyses and case summaries of related prosecutions are emerging in the literature on universal jurisdiction and Syrian accountability; see Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022; Gilchrist, 2023).
Similarly, the Netherlands prosecuted a member of the Liwa al‑Quds militia, Mustafa A., and the Hague District Court issued a conviction in January 2024 (case reporting and ongoing legal commentary are discussed in scholarly reviews of European prosecutions; see Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022; Gilchrist, 2023). France’s May 2024 convictions of three individuals in absentia at the Paris Criminal Court involving complicity in crimes against humanity and war crimes related to enforced disappearances and torture were an early example of how different European jurisdictions are approaching accountability for Syrian atrocities (scholarly literature that situates the French approach within broader European trends is developing; see Langer & Eason, 2019; Han, 2022). Swedish proceedings against Mohammed Hamo in 2024 (where he was charged with aiding and abetting war crimes for acts alleged to have been committed in 2012) exemplify how a range of national legal systems have been engaged in investigations and prosecutions (legal commentary on these national efforts is collected and analyzed in recent scholarship on universal jurisdiction; e.g., Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022; Gilchrist, 2023 ).
Other ongoing cases (for example, indictments in Brussels in 2024 and referrals to Swiss courts in 2025) illustrate the dispersed, multi‑jurisdictional approach to accountability that has emerged in Europe. These processes have relied heavily on networks of investigators, NGOs, and survivor testimony to assemble evidence that would otherwise be difficult to obtain (Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022; Gilchrist, 2023).
These trials have had a wider-reaching impact on victims of torture and other crimes against humanity. Survivors can see their suffering recognized and their stories validated in a court of law. The legal proceedings not only held individual perpetrators accountable but also documented the scale and nature of abuses suffered, providing a measure of justice and public acknowledgement that had long been denied (Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022; Han, 2022). The ripple effects extend beyond the courtroom: these prosecutions reinforce the legitimacy of asylum claims and challenge states to bring to justice those accused of crimes against humanity. While no legal system can bring every suspected individual to account, the cases give survivors a measure of agency and mark a historic advance in the struggle for human rights and accountability (Aboueldahab & Langmack,2022; Gilchrist, 2023).
The importance of survivor testimony in securing arrests and convictions is a recurrent theme in the literature. The availability and protection of survivors who can provide detailed evidence and witness statements are indispensable following atrocity situations; losing access to survivors (for example, through premature return or curtailed protections) would severely hamper future prosecutions (Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022; Gilchrist, 2023; Han, 2022). European states demonstrated an openness in 2015 to Syrians fleeing the conflict, a strong demonstration of humanitarianism, but more recent shifts toward restrictive return and protection policies risk undermining accountability. If survivors are returned to insecure zones, opportunities to assemble evidence and pursue justice through domestic courts will be diminished (Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022,Han, 2022).
For policymakers, these developments underscore several non‑negotiable imperatives: the continued protection and support of survivors is essential not merely as a humanitarian obligation but as a cornerstone for accountability and the rule of law. Rolling back protections or prematurely deeming conflict zones “safe” for return undermines both justice and the potential to build comprehensive cases against those responsible for atrocities. Policy decisions must ensure that survivors remain able to participate in judicial processes, contributing vital evidence and testimony ( Aboueldahab & Langmack, 2022; Gilchrist, 2023; Han, 2022). The pursuit of justice for victims of war crimes must not be seen as optional or secondary to other political objectives. Maintaining open pathways for survivor‑driven justice sends a clear message that Europe remains committed to accountability and will not provide a safe haven for perpetrators of serious international crimes.