France's highest court Annuls Arrest Warrant Against Bashar al-Assad

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

Image source: © Getty Images

In July 2025, the French Court of Cassation annulled the arrest warrant previously issued against former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The warrant had been issued by the investigating chamber responsible for crimes against humanity in November 2023, in connection with allegations of his participation or complicity in the use of chemical weapons during the August 2013 attacks on Eastern Ghouta and Douma.

The Court based its decision on the principle of personal immunity for sitting heads of state, holding that under current customary international law, criminal proceedings may not be initiated against a sitting head of state—even for grave crimes under international criminal law, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide.

This ruling reaffirmed the current legal framework governing personal immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction (immunité de juridiction pénale personnelle), which shields incumbent heads of state from prosecution before foreign courts during their term in office. This principle has been upheld in international jurisprudence, most notably by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the 2002 Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium decision. There, the ICJ confirmed that senior state officials, including heads of state, enjoy absolute immunity from foreign prosecution during their time in office, without exception, even when accused of international crimes. The French Court of Cassation endorsed this interpretation, without introducing any material or functional limitations to such immunity.

What distinguishes this ruling, however, is the Court’s express clarification that this immunity does not continue after the official leaves office. Once the official capacity is lost, legal avenues for prosecution reopen. This applies directly to Bashar al-Assad, who ceased to be President of Syria in December 2024. Accordingly, the Court annulled the warrant on the narrow procedural ground that it was issued while Assad was still in office, not due to lack of jurisdiction or insufficient evidence. Legally, this implies that proceedings may resume and that a new arrest warrant may lawfully be issued post-tenure.

From a legal standpoint, the ruling does not bar future prosecution of Assad for the same acts. Rather, it confines the procedural obstacle to the temporary immunity attached to his former official capacity. This is consistent with prevailing legal doctrine on the temporary nature of personal immunity, which does not shield individuals from criminal liability once their official mandate ends. It differs in this respect from functional immunity (immunité ratione materiae), which can continue post-tenure but only for official acts, not for core international crimes.

Thus, the French judiciary, through this decision, did not repudiate its universal jurisdiction over international crimes. On the contrary, it confirmed the ongoing investigations pursued by French judicial authorities in this case. These proceedings are grounded in the principle of universal jurisdiction (compétence universelle) as enshrined in French law by the Act of 9 August 2010. This law enables French prosecutors to investigate crimes against humanity and war crimes even if committed abroad and by or against non-French nationals—provided certain legal safeguards are met, which they have been in this case.

Previously, in June 2024, the Paris Court of Appeal had upheld the legality of the arrest warrant. However, the National Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor’s Office (PNAT) appealed the decision before the Court of Cassation, invoking the principle of personal immunity. The Supreme Court accepted this reasoning, based on the current interpretation of international law, without challenging the substance of the investigation or the Court’s competence to adjudicate the alleged crimes.

Notably, in January 2025, the French judiciary issued a second arrest warrant against Assad in connection with another incident involving war crimes committed against a French-Syrian national in Daraa in 2017. This move underscores France’s continued commitment to pursuing accountability in this case.

The immediate legal effect of the July 2025 decision is thus to reset the procedural timeline—not to dismiss the charges or terminate the investigation. Nor does it undermine the evidentiary basis relied upon by the prosecution, which includes independent criminal evidence such as eyewitness testimonies, video recordings, forensic analyses, and command chain documentation implicating Assad in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the Syrian armed forces. This places him, at minimum, in a position of alleged complicity, incitement, or direct perpetration within the chain of command.

In light of the above, the French Court of Cassation’s ruling may be seen as a limited procedural setback in terms of timing, but not a substantive bar to legal accountability. Rather, it narrows procedural protection to Assad’s former term in office, reaffirming that immunity is not a permanent shield against prosecution for international crimes. This leaves the door open for new arrest warrants—whether from French courts or other international bodies, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), provided relevant jurisdictional and procedural criteria are met.

Finally, while the decision does not signal a fundamental shift in the jurisprudence on immunity, it reinforces a critical tenet of international justice: that the end of office marks the beginning of accountability. The principle of non-impunity is not subject to limitation periods and cannot be nullified by mere official status—it becomes actionable once formal barriers are lifted.

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