Udenrigsudvalget 2017-18
URU Alm.del Bilag 126
Offentligt
1855584_0001.png
War Crimes against Humanity in Flagrant Violation of the Rules of International Law
The Hostilities on Afrin
Foreign Relations Authority
Email: [email protected]
1
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0002.png
Introduction
The security requirements of public order are not inconsistent with the rules of international
law, which governs the conduct of public and military operations. However, such laws cannot
be invoked to justify security-related acts if human rights and the sovereignty of a state are
violated, especially by neighbouring countries. Respect for the rules of international law
during armed conflicts requires all states concerned to implement these laws to contribute
to the cessation of unjustifiable hostilities.
However, after the 2
nd
week of the fighting, the ongoing events in Afrin in northern Syria are
a flagrant violation of human rights and international humanitarian law, after being attacked
by the Turkish state and its associated militant groups. Afrin was the safest area in Syria. In
the face of these indiscriminate and unjust attacks, it is necessary to apply the rules of
customary international humanitarian law and the protection of the victims of armed
conflicts. The hostilities by the Turkish state have exceeded the declared objective of the
operation by targeting civilians and the infrastructure, including mosques, as well as the
destruction of archaeological sites and the use of internationally prohibited weapons.
So what are the legal bases for the Turkish state argument, when it stated that it derived the
attack on Afrin from the rules of international law?
Principle of Non-Interference in Domestic Affairs of States
International alliances and treaties are an obligation on the member states to implement the
rules of international law. In this regard, Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) for more than 60 years. Turkey’s invasion of Syrian borders and
territories and its disrespect for the sovereignty of the Syrian state are matters that require
intervention by the states concerned with maintaining international peace and security to
stop Turkey’s hostilities in Syria since the beginning of the Syrian revolution until recently
in Afrin according to the following principle:
1-The Principle of Non-Interference in the Affairs of States:
All charters of international organisations prohibit all forms of interference in the affairs of
other states. This principle is linked to the basic rights of states:
- Sovereignty.
- Equality among states, especially in terms of sovereignty and states’ ability to choose their
political, economic, and socio-cultural systems.
- States’ right to manage their natural resources.
Any interference would diminish the sovereignty and authority of the state over its territory.
2
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0003.png
2. Resolutions of the UN General Assembly: Resolution 2131/December 1965
“Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the
Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty”
“No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the
internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other
forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its
political, economic and cultural elements, are condemned.”
“No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures
to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its
sovereign rights or to secure from it advantages of any kind.”
As we have stated, the basic rule of respect for the sovereignty and rights of states is to
respect the principles and charters mentioned, which proves that the Turkish occupation has
gone beyond these principles and interfered in the internal affairs of states under unjustified
justifications.
The Turkish State’s Justifications of Invading Afrin
- At a conference held in the Turkish city of Kilis, Recep Akdağ, the Deputy Prime Minister,
said: “Turkey launched the Olive Branch Operation within the framework of the rights
guaranteed by international law to protect our country and neighbours from terrorist
organisations such as the PYD, the YPG and Daesh in Afrin.”
The Turkish Chief of Staff also announced that the launch of the Olive Branch Operation is to
establish security and stability on the borders of Turkey. The statement stressed that the
Operation is taking place within the framework of Turkey’s rights to combat terrorism and
3
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0004.png
the right of self-defence, guaranteed by international law and UN Security Council
Resolutions and Article 51 of UN Charter.
However, the Turkish state’s violations of the Syrian borders have been taking place since
the beginning of the Syrian revolution through supporting and allowing members of the
terrorist organisation Daesh to enter Syria via Turkey, as well as targeting innocent civilians,
who were trying to seek refuge in Afrin.
The Turkish state’s claim of the presence of Daesh members in Afrin is simply untrue. Afrin
has always been protected by the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the Women’s Protection
Units (YPJ), the Asayesh (Police) and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which have
collectively played a pivotal role in the fight against Daesh and other terrorist groups.
Therefore, attributing terrorism to these forces to justify the invasion of Afrin by the Turkish
state is illegal.
- Article 51 of the UN Charter states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent
right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of
4
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0005.png
the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security.”
This article does not justify in any way the Turkish invasion of Afrin, and thus endangering
the lives of innocent civilians. Turkey was not attacked by the local forces in Afrin, but on the
contrary, Afrin and its villages had been bombed by the Turkish army before the start of the
so-called “Olive Branch” operation.
The Turkish Occupation Targets Civilians in Afrin
- International humanitarian law is concerned with the protection of combatant persons. It
imposes upon belligerent states a set of obligations. The 1
st
, 2
nd
and 3
rd
Geneva Conventions
place restrictions on the behaviour of belligerent parties during the conduct of military
operations. The 4
th
Geneva Convention and its Additional Protocols also protect civilians and
their properties, as well as public properties, such as schools, universities, hospitals, places
of worship, bridges, farms, factories and others.
These principle are based on:
- The distinction between military and non-military (civil) targets. Article 48 of Protocol I of
1977 states: “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and
civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian
population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and
accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”
International humanitarian law has provided general and special protection for civilian
objects, which is evident in the 4
th
Geneva Convention 1949 and the Protocols I and II the
Geneva Conventions of 1977 and the Hague Convention of 1954, related to the Protection of
Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
In the case of general protection, Article 25 of the Hague Regulations concerning the Laws
and Customs of War on Land, 1907, states:
“The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
which are undefended is prohibited.”
In case of special protection, Article 25 of the 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare provides:
“In bombardment by aircraft, all necessary steps must be taken by the commander to spare
as far as possible buildings dedicated to public worship, art, science, or charitable purposes,
historic monuments … provided such buildings, objects or places are not at the time used for
military purposes.”
- Objectives and materials indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.
- Cultural objects and places of worship.
- Protection of works and installations containing dangerous materials.
- Protection of the natural environment.
5
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0006.png
Based on all the above, we have provided international charters and treaties that prohibit
the targeting of civilians and objects or materials indispensable for their survival and
cultural and religious places. However, in Afrin everything has become permissible by the
Turkish army, which has been targeting innocent civilians, including refugees and IDPs, who
fell victims of the policies of a state that supports terrorism before the world’s eyes. As we
mentioned before, Afrin was the safest place in the region.
Some of the victims, massacred by the Turkish occupation army, which targeted civilians in
the village of Haj Khalil in Raju district in Afrin
Some of the victims, massacred by the Turkish occupation army, which targeted civilians in
Kobala village in Afrin.
6
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0007.png
The violations of the Turkish army and its associated groups did not only target innocent
civilians and their properties, but also infringed upon the historical and cultural objects of
humanity by attacking cultural and historical sites. The aim was to eliminate the cultural
heritage of Afrin and its peoples. The Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Objects
in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954 and the provisions of the Protocols I and II of 1977,
clearly state:
“Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural
Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international
instruments, it is prohibited:
(a) To commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or
places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.
(b) To use such objects in support of the military effort.
(c) To make such objects the object of reprisals.
Resolution No. 2347 adopted by the UN Security Council at its 7907th meeting, on 24 March
2017, deplored the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage, religious sites and artefacts,
and the smuggling of cultural property by terrorist groups during armed conflict, affirming
that such attacks might constitute a war crime and must be brought to justice.
With reference to all of the above, the bombing of archaeological sites and mosques in Afrin
is part of the systematic and direct attack by the Turkish army, which can be considered as
acts of terrorism according to the rules of international law and UN Security Council
resolutions. The Turkish army destroyed large parts of Ain Dara temple, which dates back
thousands of years (12,000 years according to some experts). In addition, the Turkish army
targeted Salah Al Din Mosque and the cemetery of Jindiris.
7
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0008.png
Photos of the Turkish army’s attacks on Salah Al Din Mosque and the cemetery of Jindiris.
Photo of the Turkish army’s attack on Ain Dara temple in Afrin.
The Turkish occupation army claims that its operation is based on the rules and
provisions of international law, on the pretexts of fighting terrorism, while it uses
terrorists in the battles in Afrin:
It is well-documented that Turkey is among the leading countries that support terrorism,
especially in the battles that took place in the city of Kobani in northern Syria and more
8
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0009.png
recently in Afrin. There are a lot of documents that show that many people who were
members of different terrorist organisations, such as Daesh and Al Nusra Front, are now
fighting in Afrin. How can a state claim to be fighting terrorism, while using terrorists in its
attacks to undermine the will of the Kurdish people as well as the Syrians?
Information about elements of Daesh, who are currently members of groups within
the Euphrates Shield campaign
1. Anwar Ibrahim Al Jabo, born in 1976, from the village of Al Beshririya near the city of
Terbah Sepi. He used to work as a lorry driver and joined Daesh. In 2015, he went to Turkey
and is now a member of the so-called Free Syrian Army.
2. Ismail Firas Al Abar, from Sabikhan village in Deir Al Zour. He is 35 years old and was a
Daesh military commander for 2 years. He escaped from prison and went to Turkey where
he remained for 1 year. He is currently the commander of a battalion of the Euphrates Shield.
3. Basel Nayef Al Shehab, nicknamed Abu Zeid Al Ta’ai, originally from Qortoba village near
Tel Hamis. Initially, he was with Al Nusra Front and later joined Daesh and fought against the
YPG in Kobani. He also participated in the battles of Manbij and was wounded there. He was
taken to a hospital in Mosul. A month later, he went to the northern countryside of Aleppo
and settled in Al Bab area. Basel is currently a leader of faction within the Sultan Murad
Brigade in Al Bab.
4. Abdul Qader Al Sawyj from Al Saba’a Al Arbeen village near Al Shadadi town. He was a
member of Daesh and currently is the assistant commander of the Al Hasaka Shield Brigade,
which is linked to the Turkish army.
5. Ammar Abdul Aziz Al Abbas, from AL Hermoushiyeh village near Deir Al Zour. He was a
member of Daesh and was nicknamed Abu Hamza. He is currently a fighter within Tja’ama
Al Sharqiya faction in Idlib and is now nicknamed Al Battar.
6. Ammar Musa Al Hammadi from Al Qairwan village near Darbasiyeh town. He was a
member of Daesh in Al Raqqa, and is currently a member of the Euphrates Shield in the city
of Jarablus.
7. Khalil Ahmed Nuri, from Al Arisha village. He was a member of the so-called Free Syrian
Army in Al Arisha and later joined Al Nusra Front. He joined Daesh and fought in Al Shadadi.
9
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0010.png
He went to Al Mayadin and participated in the attack on Abu Khashab. He escaped from
Daesh and is currently a member of the Euphrates Shield campaign.
8. Mehran Khalaf Al Sufi: worked within all the militant factions. He joined Daesh and was
supervising a group of Tunisian and Algerian terrorists, who he helped them to cross into
Iraq. He left Daesh and is currently working with the Euphrates Shield campaign as a security
officer.
9. Hamad Abdullah, from Samihan village near Tel Barak. He was born in 1995 and was a
member of Al Nusra Front. He later joined Daesh in Al Shadadi and went to Turkey and joined
the Euphrates Shield campaign.
10. Saleh Shehadeh: Father’s name: Mohamed Al Ahmed. Mother’s name: Amina. He was
born in 1986 in Al Qanayya west of Kobani. He joined Daesh and participated in the battle of
Kobani. He then fled to Jerablus and remained a member of Daesh. He later joined the
Euphrates Shield campaign in Jerablus.
11. Thamer Nawaf Al Khalloufi (known as Abu Abbas) from Tel Hamis. Initially he was a
member of the so-called Free Syrian Army in Tel Hamis and worked under the leadership of
Abu Hamam. After Daesh’s control of Tel Hamis, Thamer pledged allegiance to Daesh and
participated in many of their battles. Following the liberation of Tel Hamis, he fled to Turkey
and joined Ajnad Al Hassaka group in Turkey. He later became an important member of the
group, recruiting young people for the Euphrates Shield campaign.
12. Mohammed Mahmoud Al Jassim: Mother’s name: Warda. He was born in 1986 in Dikan
village in Sarin. Initially, he joined Daesh and remained in Sarin and following its liberation
he fled to Jerablus and joined the Euphrates Shiled campaign. He is current role is a security
officer and responsible for recruiting young people to the Campaign. His brother, Ahmed,
was a member of Daesh and recently fled to Jerablus.
10
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0011.png
13. Hamad Al Salama from Al Shayokh Tahtani. He joined Daesh and fought many battles. He
later joined the Euphrates Shield campaign. He is now a senior security officer in Jerablus
and works closely with Turkish intelligence.
14. Ahmed Ayoub Al Hesso, from Raheea village. He was a member of the so-called Free
Syrian Army and later joined Daesh. He is currently an officer of the Euphrates Shield
campaign in Turkey.
15. Shawkat Khoja Sama’awi from Shayoukh village. He is 50 years old. He was a senior
security officer within Daesh and participated in the battle of Kobani. He is currently a leader
of one the factions of the Euphrates Shield campaign.
16. Bassel Hamoud Al Yassin Al Shaykhan, from Al Jalaa village (10 km away from Al Raqqa).
He used to work with Daesh as a security officer, together with brothers: Yassin Hamoud Al
Yassin and Bashar Hamoud Al Yassin. They are all in Jerablus working for the Euphrates
Shield campaign.
17. Names of a number of people, who joined Daesh in Tel Hamis and later joined the
Euphrates Shield campaign:
- Mohamed Amin Asyod: mother’s name: Na’aima. He was born in 1975 in Balqish Saghyra.
- Ahmed Amin Asyod: mother’s name: Na’aima. He was born in 1983 in Balqish Saghyra.
- Amer Sulaiman Al Abdullah: born in 1981 in Hanwa Kabeer in Tel Hamis.
- Adnan Sulaiman Al Salem: mother’s name: Fawza. He was born in 1983 in Hanwa Kabeera
in Tel Hamis.
- Ismail Saleh Al Faihan: born in 1985 in Hanwa Kabeera in Tel Hamis.
11
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0012.png
- Thamer Nawaf Al Dahas: mother’s name: Mahia. He was born in 1987 in Am Kuhaif in Tel
Hamis.
- Nawaf Khalaf Al Dahas: mother’s name: Shiha. He was born in 1959 in Am Kuhaif in Tel
Hamis.
- Majhem Nawaf Al Dahas: mother’s name: Mahia. He was born in 1983 in Am Kuhaif.
- Melhem Nawaf Al Dahas: mother’s name: Mahia. He was born in 1985 in Am Kuhaif.
18. Mustafa Mohammed Qaddour and Salman Mohammed Qaddour: both joined Daesh for a
short time. They then fled to Turkey and joined the Euphrates Shield campaign.
19. Shaddad Abboud Al Akla: his nickname is Abu Yarub, and aged 32 years. His mother is
Sara Abdulaziz. At the beginning of the revolution, Shaddad was one of the most prominent
activists in the Ghuarayan district. He participated in the battles of Sri Kaneh. He had two
brother (Abu Assad and Abu Majed) and both were killed in the battles of Sri Kaneh. He later
joined Daesh in Al Mayadeen. He then fled Daesh and went to Jerablus to join the Euphrates
Shield campaign.
20. Hussain Ahmed Dakhlmi (Abu Jareih) from Qasabin village. He was a member of Daesh
and currently is a member of the Euphrates Shield campaign.
21. Mohamed Yasin Zaeer from Al Bab. He has a son called Shadi and is a military police
officer within the Euphrates Shield campaign. He is also the co-ordinator between the
Euphrates Shield and the Turkish intelligence. He is now involved in the attack on Afrin. He
has 2 brothers, Ward and Fahed, both are members of Daesh.
Al these names prove the involvement of the Turkish occupation army in supporting
terrorism, either directly or indirectly.
12
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0013.png
Turkey is a Member of NATO
The Turkish occupation army claimed that it would fight terrorism, liberate civilians and
repatriate refugees. The world knows that those who the Turkish army fight had the greatest
role in defeating terrorism in the Middle East. In addition to the targeting of innocent
civilians and the destruction of cultural objects, the Turkish army also attacked the
infrastructure in Afrin, including dams and factories. These attacks constitute a gross
violation of international law.
The Turkish army targeted the Midanki Dam in Afrin
The Turkish army attacked the vital infrastructure in Afrin (electricity-generating site)
How can a NATO member carry out such attacks, which are considered more dangerous than
terrorist attacks? These violations are the common denominator between Daesh and the
Turkish army.
13
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0014.png
The Preamble of NATO reads as follows:
“The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter
of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their
peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.”
Article I of the Treaty states:
“The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any
international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the
purposes of the United Nations.”
However, NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, said that Turkey has “the right to
defend themselves, but this has to be done in a proportionate and measured way.”
In addition to all the violations of international law by the Turkish state, the countries
concerned should intervene to stop the Turkish military operations in Afrin, which have
reached the level of war crimes.
Article VIII of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, issued in Rome on 17 July 1998,
stipulates that war crimes shall mean:
(1) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the
following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant
Geneva Convention:
- Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and
carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
(2) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed
conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following
acts:
- Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual
civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
- Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military
objectives.
- Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which
are undefended and which are not military objectives.
- Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art,
science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and
wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives.
END
14
 URU, Alm.del - 2017-18 - Bilag 126: Henvendelse af 9/2-18 fra Kurdisk Forum vedr. situationen i Afrin, Syrien
1855584_0015.png
Democratic Self-Administration of Rojava – Northern Syria
Foreign Relations Authority
Documentation and Files’ Preparation Committee
Rojava, Northern Syria - Qamishlo, 5/02/2018
Email: [email protected]
15