Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of the verdict argue that formal accountability is essential after decades of documented atrocities, including torture, mass detentions and chemical weapons attacks, and that a legal judgment, even delivered in absentia, creates an official record and begins to deliver justice to victims and their families who have waited years for acknowledgement. They contend that prosecuting former officials upholds the principle that no one, however powerful, is above the law, and may discourage future abuses by showing that impunity has limits. Many also see such trials as a necessary foundation for genuine national reconciliation, arguing that a society cannot move past civil war without first confronting and formally condemning the crimes committed against it.

The case against

Critics, without disputing the seriousness of the alleged crimes, raise concerns about trials held in absentia by a still-consolidating interim government, questioning whether defendants had any real opportunity to mount a defence or whether the proceedings meet recognised fair-trial standards. Some worry that a new administration prosecuting its predecessors risks being perceived as victor's justice rather than impartial law, which could deepen political or sectarian divisions instead of healing them. Others object to the use of capital punishment itself, arguing that executions, even symbolic ones against absent defendants, foreclose the kind of truth-and-reconciliation process that has helped other post-conflict societies build lasting peace, and that verdicts with little realistic prospect of enforcement risk appearing more symbolic than substantive.