This publication was funded by the European Union, and in partnership with the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Syrians for Truth and Justice – STJ/ the publisher and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights.
1. Introduction
Decree No. 13 of 2026 seeks to turn the page on decades of exclusion and address the cumulative impacts of the 1962 census by restoring the civil and fundamental rights of those deprived of Syrian citizenship. Yet its practical implementation faces severe administrative and bureaucratic challenges that risk reducing its text to unfulfilled promises.
Jomerd Hamo, a stateless Syrian Kurd from al-Qahtaniyyeh/Tirbespî, submitted an application for Syrian citizenship under Decree No. 13 of 2026. Despite completing the interview and fingerprinting and receiving an official receipt bearing his photo, the fate of his eight children, some of whom have reached adulthood, remained uncertain because their names were not included in the application, even though Executive Decision No. 144/M allows the head of the household to submit a family application for himself, his spouse, and his minor children. According to his testimony to Syrians for Truth and Justice (STJ), he was informed during the application process and subsequent follow-ups that his children’s registration would come only after he first obtained citizenship, followed by the validation of his marriage. Consequently, Jomerd’s children remain outside the application process to this day, holding no official proof other than neighborhood council (the commune) certificates issued by the former Autonomous Administration, with no clear timeline for when these procedures might conclude, potentially stretching for months or longer.
In contrast, the path of Jwan Abdo, also a stateless Kurd, highlights disparities in administrative practices. He brought his children and grandchildren to the Municipal Stadium center in Qamishli at the committee’s request and provided detailed information and documents about his family, including his daughter living outside Syria. After document verification and data entry, he received a receipt confirming the application, and all family members were included. However, according to his latest follow-up, the case remained “under review,” with no clarification of the remaining steps or the completion date.
Meanwhile, Evan Ramo, a stateless Kurd living in al-Malikiyah/Dêrik, spoke to STJ about the extensive obstacles he and his wife faced while following up on their files, including errors in his and his son’s data and a notification that the correction of his son’s name would be postponed until after identity cards were issued. Furthermore, the family learned of his wife’s interview appointment late, via the application, and when they visited the committee at the Municipal Stadium center in Qamishli, they were told verbally that she “will not get an ID.” His attempts to request a review of her status were stonewalled. Evan notes that when he complained to the committee judge, the official responded: “Do not you want Kurdistan [a separate region]? What do you need a Syrian identity for?”
Evan’s testimony raises a critical question about the implementation mechanisms of Decree No. 13: How can we ensure that processing citizenship deprivation becomes an administrative practice that safeguards the dignity of those affected and prevents their rights from being frozen based on political stances attributed to them?
These three cases reveal a stark divergence in post-application outcomes. While Jomerd’s children remain excluded from the process, Jwan’s paperwork included his family members without a final decision confirming that their civil registry records were complete, and Evan’s experience involved data corrections and case review, along with fears of political profiling. These cases highlight the importance of tracking procedures beyond initial registration, through record completion, document issuance, and the preservation of dignity.
Against this backdrop, the present report raises its core questions: How was Article 4 of Decree No. 13 implemented? What stage have applicants’ applications and their families reached? What factors still separate the regularization of their legal status from the actual exercise of their rights?
The report tracks the latest documented stages through the end of September 2026, distinguishing among application registration, adjudication, civil registry finalization, and document issuance. It also examines how these stages affect family reunification, education, employment, property, and freedom of movement, and presents the testifiers’ aspirations for equality, political participation, and redress. It draws on previous pathways solely to explain ongoing, unresolved situations, without conflating past outcomes with the achievements of the new decree.