The Syrian authorities must suspend implementation of and substantially amend Law No. 20 of 2022 on Combating Cybercrime, passed by the former Bashar al-Assad government, to bring it in line with Syria’s obligations under international human rights law, Amnesty International said today. Syria’s Ministry of Justice in June 2026 announced a review of the cybercrime law and introduced some limitations around its use, yet it continues to be used to restrict the right to freedom of expression.
Amnesty International documented five cases of journalists and activists who were detained for their online expression between January and June 2026 for periods of up to seven days under the 2022 Cybercrime Law. All five were arrested under provisions of the law that criminalize peaceful online expression through broadly and vaguely defined offences, including “undermining the prestige of the state,” “undermining the state’s financial standing,” and “electronic defamation.” Two of those individuals are facing criminal prosecution which could result in heavy prison sentences.
“Since the fall of the Assad government, Syrian civil society carved out space for freedom of expression and association despite the existing repressive legislative framework. It is alarming that the transitional authorities have continued to use the repressive Assad-era cybercrime law against individuals who voice criticism of Syria’s authorities. While the 2025 Constitutional Declaration guarantees the right to freedom of expression, the continued enforcement of the cybercrime law leaves those who criticize the authorities at risk of arrest and prosecution simply for expressing their views online,” said Heba Morayef, Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International.
“The authorities have repeatedly declared their intent to build a new Syria and have taken several positive steps to break from that repressive past, but the use of old, abusive laws to chill and restrict dialogue, debate and critique seriously undermines that path. With parliament now in place, the reform of the inherited repressive legislative framework needs to be prioritized to bring it in accordance with international human rights standards, starting with abusive provisions in the 2022 Cybercrime Law and Penal Code. No one should face arrest, prosecution or punishment solely for peacefully expressing their opinions online.”
On June 21, 2026, the Ministry of Justice announced the formation of legal and technical committees to review a number of laws, including the Cybercrime Law.
Amnesty International interviewed six people; two individuals arrested for exercising their right to freedom of expression, two individuals with information about additional cases of arrest and two lawyers with information about cases. The organization also reviewed summaries of court documents, reports by local and international human rights organizations, credible media outlets and statements and circulars by the authorities.
New limits on pre-trial detention and other safeguards
The authorities have announced some procedural safeguards around the implementation of the cybercrime law. On June 26, the Ministry of Justice issued a circular requiring cybercrime investigations to obtain judicial authorization before specialized investigations are initiated and prohibiting pretrial detention except in exceptional circumstances such as “for preserving evidence, preventing influence over witnesses or the victim, or preventing a danger to society or to the suspect.”
The circular also limits wanted notices, and search measures to exceptional circumstances, and establishes a review of previously issued searched notices. However, even with these procedural safeguards, the cybercrime law allows for interference with the right to privacy and carries prison sentences for speech-related offences that are protected by freedom of expression.
While the circular appropriately limits the referral of certain online expression-related offences to the specialized judicial police, it fails to ensure that the investigation and prosecution of offences relating to online expression, including defamation, insult, and libel, remain fully consistent with the protections afforded to the right to freedom of expression. Amnesty International is therefore calling for the full suspension of the implementation of the law pending reform.
On July 21, 2026, Mazen Arja, an activist from the city of Idlib, was arrested after he reported to the Cybercrime Branch in Damascus in response to a summons. Based on publicly available information, his arrest may be connected to his public announcement of his intention to run as a presidential candidate. Mazen Arja’s arrest is inconsistent with the Ministry of Justice’s circular since he does not fulfil the criteria that justify exceptional detention.
Amnesty International had previously documented an earlier arbitrary arrest of Mazen Arja by order of the Office of the Prosecutor in Idlib in July 2025 after he posted on Facebook about his treatment by the justice system. He was detained for 63 days on charges of “undermining the prestige of the judiciary.” He was arrested again in April 2026 following a complaint filed by the former Minister of Health, on charges of “undermining the prestige of the state, the Office of the Presidency, and the Office of the Presidential Secretariat headed by Maher al-Sharaa,” because of a Facebook post which described the relationship between the former Minister of Health and Maher al-Sharaa, in January 2025.
Under international law, authorities may only hold under criminal investigation or awaiting trial in pretrial detention only as an exceptional and strictly necessary measure based on an individualized assessment.
The authorities must present evidence to show that detention is necessary and proportionate because of a substantial risk of either flight, serious harm to others, the recurrence of crime, or interference with the evidence or investigation. In the absence of any such evidence, those held in pretrial detention should be released.
Arrested for online expression
The organization has documented three cases, including that of two journalists and an activist arrested and accused of “undermining the reputation and prestige of the state” and “electronic defamation and insult,” charges under the cybercrime law. The organization received information about two additional activists arrested and charged based on “spreading false news” and defamation and “insult.” All five were subsequently released after detention and investigation periods ranging from 24 hours to seven days.
Prosecutors formally charged three of the group, including one journalist and two activists, while private complaints were made against two others, including one journalist and an activist. The two private complaints were subsequently dropped due to public pressure. In the state-brought accusations cases, the journalist still faces the risk of prosecution while the proceedings remain pending trial for the two activists.
Amnesty International reviewed the online content on which the accusations or charges were based for all five cases and found no indication that it incited violence or hatred or any of the circumstances which could be one limitation on speech that could warrant arrest or criminal prosecution. Their speech was therefore protected by the right to freedom of expression and the organization urges the authorities to immediately drop all charges against the three since they arise solely from the peaceful exercise of human rights.
In one recent prominent case, security forces arrested Hassan Akkad, an artist and director, was arrested without a warrant from a coffee shop in the al-Malki neighborhood of Damascus on June 17, 2026. He was arrested by eight men in plain clothes, two of whom were masked and carrying rifles, who later identified themselves as members of the Criminal Security Department.
Hassn Akkad had launched the “Hato El Flous” (Pay Up) campaign in April 2026 to hold individuals, business figures, and officials accountable for unfulfilled financial pledges they had previously made in support of relief efforts, reconstruction projects, and public services.
He was arrested after a private individual filed a complaint accusing him of defamation and “insult,” both crimes under Syrian law, in June 2026, which was referred to the public prosecutor. According to a lawyer, the arrest was based on Article 23 and Article 24 of the 2022 Cybercrime Law. Following significant public outcry, he was released five days later after the individual withdrew the complaint against him.
“Transitioning from a deeply repressive legislative framework is never easy. However, as an immediate step and pending the reform process, the Ministry of Justice and the Public Prosecutor can issue instructions to halt all arrests and pretrial detention in speech-related offences, which in any case would not fulfil the criteria under international law where pretrial detention is warranted,” said Heba Morayef.
2022 Cybercrime Law falls short of international human rights standards
The 2022 Cybercrime Law criminalizes various forms of expression protected which Syria is obligated to protect as party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since 1969.
Syria’s 2022 Cybercrime Law criminalizes various forms of expression protected under international human rights law. Articles 24, 25, 27 to 29, and 31 impose harsh penalties for offences that are not recognized crimes under international law, including “committing insult or contempt”, “crimes against the constitution,” “undermining the prestige of the state,” “undermine confidence in the national currency or financial system” and “insulting religions, sacred symbols, religious rituals, or incites hatred or violence.” It also criminalizes defamation, which under international human rights standards today should be treated as a civil and not a criminal offense.
Under its broad and vague provisions, individuals could face arrest and prosecution for online opinions perceived by the authorities as critical of the government.
The law also establishes broad enforcement powers. Articles 34 and 35 classify most online publication and republication as public dissemination, extending criminal liability to those who share content, even if they did not originate it.
It also allows for broad-ranging censorship. Article 37 authorizes courts to block websites or information systems for periods ranging from three months to permanent closure where they are used to commit offences under the law. In addition, Article 43 permits restrictions on access to websites through judicial orders or administrative action by the regulatory authority.
Article 19 of the ICCPR guarantees everyone the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media. Under Article 19(3) restrictions on the right to freedom of expression are permitted only in narrowly defined circumstances, and criminal sanctions are only deemed as a legitimate limitation where expression amounts to incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.
Any restriction on this right must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate. It is the responsibility of the state to demonstrate that the restriction pursues a legitimate objective and that it is both necessary and proportionate to achieving that objective.
In its July 2024 concluding observations on Syria, the UN Human Rights Committee noted that the law imposes severe penalties for certain forms of speech and questioned its compatibility with Article 19 of the ICCPR. It recommended that Syria amend the law to remove vague provisions and ensure that any restrictions on expression comply with the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
“In 2025, the National Commission on Transitional Justice and the Ministry of Justice told Amnesty International that legislative reform is a priority. Now that the Parliament is in place, the Commission and the Ministry of Justice has an opportunity to signal that they are prioritizing political freedoms by fast-tracking the reform of repressive laws that undermine the protection of human rights, and bringing them in line with international human rights law,” said Heba Morayef.
Contact: [email protected]