France Poised for Historic Ruling on Assad Arrest Warrant

By: LL.M Linda Osman, Lawyer and human rights activist.

On Friday, 4 July 2025, France’s Court of Cassation held a public hearing to review the French arrest warrant issued in November 2023 for former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He is accused of complicity in crimes against humanity and war crimes for the use of chemical weapons in the 2013 attacks on Ghouta and Douma. The court is grappling with a fundamental question of international law: can the personal immunity of a sitting head of state be lifted before a domestic court in cases involving grave international crimes?

The case originated in March 2021, when civil society groups—including the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression, the Syrian Archive, and Médecins Sans Frontières—filed a criminal complaint in Paris. Their case relied on reports from the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons confirming that sarin gas was delivered via ground-to-ground missiles in Douma and Eastern Ghouta, killing over 1,000 civilians and leaving thousands more with severe injuries.

Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows French courts to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity regardless of where they were committed, two French investigating judges issued the November 2023 arrest warrant for Assad and others. French law permits such prosecutions when sufficient evidence exists, and the use of chemical weapons is recognised under international law as a jus cogens crime, a peremptory norm so serious that no immunity can shield it.

In June 2024, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the arrest warrant, ruling that the acts attributed to Assad exceeded the scope of his official duties as head of state.

In response, the National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office (PNAT) appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that Assad retained personal immunity in 2023 as a sitting head of state, and that quashing the warrant was necessary to uphold France’s sovereignty and prevent political interference through the courts. But the Court of Appeal rejected that argument, finding that the alleged crimes were so serious that they fell outside the realm of official acts, allowing immunity to be lifted.

The proceedings before the Court of Cassation have focused on two key legal questions. First, the scope of personal immunity (ratione personae), which protects sitting heads of state from foreign prosecution for any acts—official or private—while in office. Second, whether that immunity can be lifted when a head of state is accused of acts beyond official duties that qualify as the most serious international crimes, including crimes against humanity and the use of chemical weapons.

At the hearing, Prosecutor Rémy Heitz argued that personal immunity must remain absolute during a president’s term, safeguarding state sovereignty and preventing “retaliatory” or politically motivated prosecutions. However, he also offered what he called a “third way”: avoiding the immunity-versus-criminal-responsibility debate by acknowledging that France has not recognised Assad as Syria’s legitimate head of state since 2012, a position endorsed by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

By contrast, lawyers for the victims and civil society groups argued that fighting impunity is a “legally binding interest” and that crimes involving chemical weapons fall under jus cogens norms that preclude any claim of immunity. They insisted that, much like the International Criminal Court, France’s highest court should refuse to recognise personal or functional immunity in such cases.

The Court of Cassation’s ruling will have significant international repercussions. If it decides that chemical weapons attacks breach jus cogens norms and that personal immunity does not apply, France will set a precedent that could enable the prosecution of sitting heads of state for such crimes. If, instead, it affirms immunity as an absolute legal protection, it will reinforce the legal shield for heads of state—even in the face of overwhelming evidence of serious crimes.

When the decision is handed down on 25 July 2025, it will define the legal threshold for lifting or maintaining immunity in cases of the most serious international crimes. It will also clarify the role of national courts within the international justice system. France will thus be taking a legal and political stand on global criminal justice: either strengthening the rule of law against impunity, or imposing new limits on when immunity can be set aside for atrocity crimes.

By: LL.M Linda Osman, Lawyer and human rights activist.