Death sentences handed down by a Damascus court against senior figures of Syria’s former regime are now sparking a legal fight over whether fugitives abroad could be extradited for retrial. The Damascus Criminal Court sentenced Bashar Assad, his brother Maher Assad, Atef Najib, and a group of security and military commanders to death for intentional killing and torture, which the court classified as war crimes and crimes against humanity. Some were sentenced in absentia, while Najib was sentenced in his presence. Amnesty International called for the abolition of trials in absentia and the death penalty, arguing for judicial reform to ensure fair trial standards and compliance with international law. Syria’s Ministry of Justice responded that the cases were heard by a competent civilian criminal court, with victims and their representatives involved, and that defence rights and avenues for appeal and objection were available under international law. The extradition issue is particularly focused on Bashar Assad. Before the ruling, Damascus had asked Moscow to hand him over, but Russia neither agreed to the request nor formally rejected it. Syrian lawyer and human rights activist Orwa Sosi said the key is separating procedural rules from the substance of the case. He pointed to Syria’s Criminal Procedure Code No. 112 of 1950. For defendants who have fled justice, Article 322 and related provisions apply, while Article 333 governs what happens when a ruling is made in absentia. Under Article 333, if an absent defendant surrenders or is arrested before the sentence becomes time-barred, the ruling and the procedures specified in the article are automatically nullified and the trial reopens under ordinary procedures. Sosi said that means arresting someone sentenced in absentia would not automatically trigger execution, because the death sentence would be annulled and a new in-person trial would follow. On challenging rulings, Sosi said Article 339 allows the public prosecution, the personal plaintiff, and the party bearing civil liability to appeal a felony conviction made in absentia through an appeal in cassation. He also stressed a difference between death sentences issued in absentia and those issued in a defendant’s presence. Article 340 requires the public prosecution to refer cases involving death sentences issued in the defendant’s presence to the Court of Cassation, but that mandatory referral cannot be automatically extended to cases decided in absentia. Sosi noted that even if a death sentence in absentia can form part of a basis for a wanted person’s extradition request, it does not oblige the country where the person is located to hand them over. Extradition requests under Syrian law are governed by Law No. 53 of 1955, with international treaties taking precedence. In Bashar Assad’s case in Russia, Damascus’s extradition request and Russia’s decision to hand him over are separate, and any outcome would depend on Russian law and the cooperation framework between the two countries. The death penalty itself can also become an obstacle, because some countries that have abolished it refuse extradition where execution could follow or require guarantees that it will not be carried out.