According to these testimonies, the measures were carried out under the supervision of, or directly implemented by, armed groups affiliated with the General Security. They included the sealing off of the neighborhood, prohibitions on entry and exit, eviction demands issued even to individuals holding property deeds, the marking of homes, the confiscation of devices and personal belongings during raids, and the arrest of civilians among the residents. These actions reportedly led to the displacement of approximately 80% of the neighborhood\u2019s population within a short period. Reuters<\/a> reported an even higher figure, estimating displacement at 85%, noting a decline in the neighborhood\u2019s population from 22,000 to 3,000.<\/p>\n STJ further notes that the historical legal status of the land on which the neighborhood was established is itself complex. According to property records, the land \u2014registered as plot No. 3603\u2014 is recorded in the names of residents of Muadamiyat al-Sham, a predominantly Sunni area. Over previous decades, the property was subject to successive expropriation notations by various government entities, without the full implementation of compensation or the conduct of independent judicial proceedings to address the rights of the original owners.<\/p>\n The documented information indicates that the events in al-Sumaria cannot be reduced to an ordinary civil or real estate dispute. Rather, they involved coercive measures carried out in the absence of clear legal safeguards, necessitating a careful human rights\u2013based assessment of the evictions and the accompanying practices. The significance of this report is further underscored by the risk that similar patterns may recur in other areas, rendering the analysis of this case a useful entry point for proposing more sustainable legal approaches to addressing housing and property disputes through lawful means and without recourse to violence.<\/p>\n For the purposes of this report, STJ conducted five in-depth interviews with witnesses from the al-Sumaria neighborhood. Informed consent was obtained from all participants after clarifying the voluntary nature of their participation and the manner in which the information they provided would be used, including the inclusion of excerpts from their testimonies in this report. Witnesses expressed a clear preference for the concealment of their identities and any details that might lead to their identification, due to fears of reprisals against themselves or their families. Accordingly, pseudonyms are used throughout this legal paper when referring to individuals whose testimonies are cited.<\/p>\n Corroborated testimonies documented by STJ indicate that raids in the al-Sumaria neighborhood were not carried out as routine administrative measures. Rather, they bore a coercive and selective character with an identity-based dimension, accompanied by restrictions on movement and practices resembling the de facto screening of residents. From the outset, these operations were marked by violence aimed at instilling fear and coercion within the neighborhood. \u201cSamer\u201d (an Alawite witness who is currently displaced from al-Sumaria to another area in Muadamiyat al-Sham as a result of his family\u2019s forced displacement) stated:<\/p>\n \u201cThey entered the neighborhood firing shots and playing chants with a jihadist tone to terrorize people. Any house found empty would have its door broken down. About ten individuals would raid each house. When some women refused to open their doors out of fear, they forced them open, although only a very small number behaved in a non-violent manner.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cLynn\u201d (an Alawite university student who continues to reside in al-Sumaria) further underscored the discriminatory dimension accompanying the raids, the closure of the neighborhood, and restrictions on movement, stating:<\/p>\n \u201cThey would enter people\u2019s homes\u2026 and repeat sectarian insults such as \u2018Go to the camps, Alawite pigs,\u2019 and they sealed off al-Sumaria and did not allow anyone to move.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The same witness also reported that some houses were visually marked with symbols placed on fa\u00e7ades:<\/p>\n \u201cThey marked the houses with signs like O or X\u2026 and when they reached our house, they put an X on it, without us understanding what that meant.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Testimonies further indicate that certain raid and eviction measures were initially presented to residents as an inspection carried out by a \u201ccommittee\u201d purportedly coming to review property ownership contracts. The situation, however, escalated into raids and selective practices, including the targeting of young men for arrest and the forcing of families to leave, without any written decision being issued or any official identification of the body involved or its legal authority.<\/p>\n This account is reinforced by \u201cSamer,\u201d who stated that raids were conducted \u201cselectively\u2026 and if there were more than two men in the house, they would take them for arrest,\u201d<\/strong> reflecting the use of de facto screening of residents and families during the inspection process.<\/p>\n On 3 September 2025, the Governor of Damascus met<\/a> with a group of al-Sumaria residents and affirmed that \u201cthe State is governed by law and citizens\u2019 rights are protected and guaranteed.\u201d<\/strong> Nevertheless, witnesses unanimously reported that subsequent developments consisted of renewed pressure and attempts at forcible removal, further indicating the absence of a clear official mechanism or a reviewable administrative process, as well as a fundamental failure to uphold transparency and procedural clarity. These elements constitute essential requirements for the lawfulness of any housing- or property-related measure under international standards, and support a finding of compounded violations of residents\u2019 rights to equality, freedom from degrading treatment, and the right to secure housing.<\/p>\n Testimonies indicate that arrest and ill-treatment were used as direct tools of pressure to compel residents to leave their homes within short, imposed timeframes, thereby stripping any \u201cdecision\u201d to depart of its voluntary character and transforming it into a form of direct coercion. \u201cLynn\u201d reported that some detainees were released only on the condition of immediate eviction, stating:<\/p>\n \u201cThey arrested many young and adult men, including our 15-years-old neighbor. They took everyone who had also completed a \u2018status settlement\u2019\u2026 One of the detained young men was released completely exhausted from the beating. He said they kept assaulting them until the sheikh came and said: whoever wants to leave should be released on the condition that they vacate their home by Thursday.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n This explicit linkage between personal liberty and eviction demonstrates that detention did not constitute an independent law-enforcement measure, but rather a coercive instrument aimed at forcing individuals to vacate their homes within an imposed deadline. Such practices amount to forced displacement grounded in coercion rather than voluntary choice. \u201cHassan\u201d (an Alawite witness displaced from al-Sumaria to Mesyaf) corroborated this pattern by stating that residents were given no more than 24 hours to leave, despite his possession of official property ownership documents, saying:<\/p>\n \u201cThe aim was displacement; they gave us only twenty-four hours to leave, even though I have documents proving my ownership of the house.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The imposition of such short deadlines \u2014when coupled with threats and ill-treatment\u2014 constitutes a key indicator of the absence of procedural safeguards and any form of judicial review. This runs contrary to international standards requiring adequate prior notice, access to effective remedies \u2014including the ability to challenge the decision before an independent body, submit objections and legal arguments, and receive a reasoned response within an appropriate timeframe\u2014 and the obligation to refrain from any form of pressure or violence in the context of eviction proceedings.<\/p>\n These testimonies are consistent with information documented by verified open sources indicating that a large number of families were notified to vacate their homes within 48 hours, and that some were prevented from removing essential belongings during the process \u2014coercive measures that reportedly accompanied the campaign during the same period, as also confirmed by testimonies documented by STJ.<\/p>\n Reuters reported<\/a> that \u201cThis is a notification to residents of illegal housing in al-Somaria to leave their houses in no more than 48 hours or face punishment under the law,\u201d<\/strong> as stated in notices that Reuters saw posted on dozens of homes, adding that the documents indicated they had been issued by the \u201cPublic Housing Committee of the General Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Ultra Syria<\/em> published<\/a> the testimony of a woman stating that \u201carmed men informed residents they must leave within 48 hours \u2018or we will demolish the houses over your heads\u2019.\u201d Moreover, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported<\/a> that \u201can armed faction coming from Mo\u2019adamiyah area displaced families from Al- Sumariyah neighborhood in Rif Dimashq, after giving those remaining inside the neighborhood no more than 48 hours to leave, without allowing them to take their personal items.\u201d<\/p>\n The documented testimonies also align with published reporting indicating that the operations were carried out in the presence of field commanders affiliated with local factions, including an individual reportedly known as \u201cAbu Hudhayfah,\u201d described as one of those responsible for deploying fighters who committed violations in the neighborhood during the campaign. In this context, Reuters reported<\/a> that scores of security forces led by an interior ministry commander known as Abu Hudhayfah went door-to-door, telling families they were living on land illegally seized by the Assads and demanding proof they owned their homes, according to a dozen residents and two local leaders who all said they experienced this treatment\u201d.<\/p>\n Testimonies further indicate that some residents were subjected to direct physical assault, including beatings and torture. These accounts corroborate verified open-source reporting of the use of physical violence<\/a> in the context of the forced evictions in al-Sumaria, including against women<\/a>, reinforcing the characterization of the measures as rooted in coercion and violence rather than any lawful process.<\/p>\n Testimonies indicate that the eviction process was accompanied by direct restrictions on residents\u2019 ability to use, benefit from, or remove their belongings upon departure, resulting in significant material losses. \u201cHassan\u201d reported that those carrying out the operation prevented residents from taking their furniture and belongings, stating:<\/p>\n \u201cWhen we tried to take our household belongings out, members of the faction prevented us from taking many essential items. I was forced to sell property worth one hundred million for only two and a half million, because I could not afford the cost of transporting the furniture.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cLynn\u201d further noted that these restrictions were not limited to property inside homes, but were accompanied by parallel constraining measures, including the closure of shops, the cutting of water supplies, and the prevention of food items from entering the neighborhood during the campaign, stating:<\/p>\n \u201cThey closed all the shops, cut off the water, and prevented the entry of food supplies, and then began issuing threats\u2026 while women remained inside the homes after a large number of men had left.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Several testimonies also indicate that a number of homes were subjected to the seizure of movable property or tampering with their contents during raids, including furniture and household appliances. This adds an additional material dimension to the forced eviction and may, under Syrian law, amount to aggravated theft where such acts occur under threat or within an armed context. These measures constitute direct material pressure on residents at the moment of eviction, deepening the impact on their livelihood security and their right to adequate housing.<\/p>\n Forced evictions typically have a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable groups \u2014particularly children, female-headed households, and poorer families\u2014 given their limited access to protection networks and alternative resources. This in turn generates immediate social and economic risks affecting both adults and children alike.<\/p>\n In this context, the testimony of \u201cHuda\u201d (an Alawite widow who lost her husband and two of her children during the war) illustrates the profound effects of eviction on particularly vulnerable groups, notably widows and women-led households. She explained that, due to threats, she was forced to leave her home with her two children without belongings, and was unable to secure shelter or cover even the most basic expenses, which compelled her to remain in a public park. She stated:<\/p>\n \u201cThey came knocking on doors, terrorized us, frightened the children, insulted us and insulted my deceased children, and told us to leave with only the clothes we were wearing, without taking any of our belongings\u201d. <\/strong><\/p>\n She added:<\/p>\n \u201cI took my children and stepped out onto the street, and I ended up sitting in the park because I cannot afford rent. None of my relatives is able to take us in, and I do not even have the fare to reach them. I go to nearby shops to collect whatever leftover food I can find to feed my two young children\u2026 My older son is twelve years old, and he too is searching for work. What have I done wrong, simply because my husband and children were killed in the war?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n This testimony reflects that the eviction took place in a context devoid of housing alternatives or adequate social support arrangements, thereby exacerbating the livelihood insecurity of resource-poor households and exposing children to heightened risks, including child labour and school dropout.<\/p>\n Huda\u2019s case does not represent the only example of the compounded impact of eviction on impoverished families and women-headed households. Other similar cases were also reported, including one widely circulated in various media outlets showing a woman and her child forced to sleep on the street due to the absence of any alternative shelter.<\/p>\n Image:<\/em> A woman and her child forced to spend the night on the street following eviction due to the lack of alternative shelter \u2014 Source: Rozana<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Testimonies documented by STJ indicate that the existence of property deeds or formal housing documentation did not afford residents any legal protection. On the contrary, such documentation appears to have been entirely disregarded throughout the eviction process, in a manner suggesting that the measures were carried out outside any reviewable administrative or judicial framework. \u201cHassan\u201d stated that, despite possessing documents proving his ownership of the house, he was ordered to leave within a short deadline without any consideration of his legal status, saying:<\/p>\n \u201cThe house belongs to me, yet the documents we had did not protect us from being expelled.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cLynn\u201d further emphasized the generalized nature of this practice, noting that the treatment of residents did not distinguish between those holding legal ownership contracts and those without:<\/p>\n \u201cThey entered homes and treated everyone the same way, whether they had a property contract or not.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n These testimonies align with a statement<\/a> issued by the Supreme Alawite Islamic Council in Syria and the Diaspora, which condemned the raids and forced removals and affirmed that the measures disregarded residents\u2019 legal documents, while also being accompanied by physical assaults and discriminatory insults.<\/p>\n Similar accounts have been reflected in multiple reports<\/a> and video footage<\/a> circulated through verified open sources, reinforcing that the measures were not linked to any legal review of housing rights nor to an official procedure for dispossession. Rather, they constituted a wholesale exclusion of fundamental procedural safeguards, which are indispensable conditions for the lawfulness of any measure affecting housing and property. This represents a direct breach of international standards requiring adequate prior notice, access to appeal and review mechanisms, and individualized consideration of legal status prior to any decision affecting housing and property, placing the incident squarely within the scope of forced evictions lacking procedural legitimacy.<\/p>\n Property records and open sources<\/a> indicate that al-Sumaria is built on a land plot (No. 3603) that, over successive decades, was subjected to expropriation notations and reallocation measures without a definitive legal settlement of ownership status or compensation. This has produced a complex housing reality and resulted in two distinct categories of affected persons. On the one hand, the land on which the neighborhood is situated remains registered \u2014since the 1960s\u2014 in the names of original owners from Muadamiyat al-Sham, a predominantly Sunni area. Over time, however, the plot was subjected to both official and unofficial uses and allocations, without a completed judicial process to determine competing claims or to provide reparations for harm arising from earlier expropriation measures.<\/p>\n On the other hand, in the absence of a fair legal settlement addressing that historical phase, current residents \u2014predominantly Alawite\u2014 gradually settled in the neighborhood over the years, including families who inherited occupancy of these homes. Today, they find themselves facing forced eviction measures lacking safeguards of review, compensation, or alternative shelter. This reveals a dual pattern of victimization:<\/p>\n In addition to these two groups, a Syrian government official from the Ministry of Interior stated (to <\/a>al-Modon<\/em><\/a> newspaper<\/a>) that \u201cthe al-Sumaria area is among the usurped properties whose possession belongs to the State. The former regime had carved it out from the town of Muadamiyat al-Sham and its surroundings to make it special housing for sectarian military and security formations. It was granted to what was known as the Defense Companies, founded by Rifaat al-Assad, brother of Hafez al-Assad, before being placed under the control of the Fourth Division and the Air Force Intelligence Branch\u2026 A large portion of these dwellings originally belong to the Ministry of Defense, while other parts belong to intelligence branches and security institutions. Accordingly, they constitute State property, and following the dissolution of these agencies, ownership of these dwellings was returned to the State\u2019s disposition.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n This context underscores that the recent coercive measures did not resolve the historical property dispute nor establish a balanced legal mechanism for reconciling competing rights. Instead, they introduced a new layer of harm through forced displacement carried out without compensation or an individualized legal assessment of occupants\u2019 status. From a human rights perspective, addressing an accumulated property dispute through force and coercion \u2014rather than through formal mechanisms for adjudication, compensation, and housing alternatives\u2014 results in a compounded violation of the right to property, the right to adequate housing, and the right to access effective remedies for all affected groups.<\/p>\n International law recognizes the right of individuals and entities to own property \u2014both tangible and intangible\u2014 and to use, benefit from, and dispose of it in accordance with applicable legal frameworks. This right constitutes a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of both economic and social structures. International law also protects the right to adequate housing as an extension of human dignity, as reflected in several international instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/a> (articles 17 and 25), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights<\/a> (articles 11 and 17), the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union<\/a> (article 17), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women<\/a> (article 14). Under these standards, attacks on homes and their contents, or the forcible deprivation of owners of the use of their property, constitutes a clear violation of the rights to property and adequate housing.<\/p>\n In the same context, the documented testimonies indicate that some residents were subjected to insults and physical assaults by armed elements wearing General Security uniforms. Such practices fall within the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 5), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 7), and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment<\/a>, in addition to relevant norms contained in the four Geneva Conventions<\/a> and their 1977 Additional Protocols.<\/p>\n The coercive displacement of families amounts to the crime of forced displacement, prohibited under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 9), the Fourth Geneva Convention<\/a> (article 49), and Additional Protocol II<\/a> (article 17). Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court<\/a>, forced displacement is classified as a war crime or a crime against humanity (articles 7 and 8).<\/p>\n In this regard, the violations documented cannot be justified on the basis that some individuals were previously affiliated with military or civilian structures connected to the former regime. A significant proportion of victims are women and children, and members of the armed forces who refrained from fighting or laid down their arms constitute persons hors de combat<\/em> under Common Article 3<\/a> of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. They must be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction. The Fourth Geneva Convention also prohibits the arbitrary seizure or confiscation of their property (article 46).<\/p>\n At the domestic level, the practices documented in this report contradict the Syrian Constitutional Declaration<\/a> issued in March 2025, which affirms the inviolability of private property (article 16) and provides that all rights and freedoms enshrined in international human rights treaties, charters, and conventions form an integral part of the Declaration (article 12). Accordingly, violations of physical integrity, exposure to degrading treatment, torture, or arbitrary arrest constitute direct breaches of the core constitutional framework. Moreover, targeting occupants on the basis of sectarian affiliation contravenes the principle of equality set out in the Constitutional Declaration (article 10).<\/p>\n Applicable Syrian law provides that the right to use, exploit, and dispose of real property is reserved to the owner under the Syrian Civil Code<\/a>, and that expropriation may only occur within a clear legal framework and in return for fair compensation. Lease contracts likewise confer upon tenants the right to benefit from a property in exchange for an agreed rent. In addition, housing established pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 12 of 1975<\/a> concerning the Military Housing Establishment \u2014including al-Sumaria housing\u2014 may be owned or leased by non-military persons, as the applicable legal framework permits transfer of ownership to third parties upon full payment of the price and the lapse of the legally prescribed period.<\/p>\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2. Raids and Identity-Based Screening<\/h4>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3. Arbitrary Arrest, Ill-Treatment, and the Imposition of Eviction Deadlines<\/h4>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4. Forced Eviction and the Deprivation of Owners of the Ability to Remove Their Belongings and Household Furnishings<\/h4>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 5. Impact of Forced Displacement on the Most Vulnerable Groups<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/stj-sy.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Picture1-2-516x516.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/h4>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a06. Property Deeds and the Disregard for the Legal Status of Housing<\/h4>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 7. Historical Ownership Context and the Dual Categories of Victims in the Housing Dispute<\/h5>\n
\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 8. Legal Dimensions<\/h4>\n