Three full days have passed since the official deadline for the Fact-Finding Committee investigating the Massacres of the Syrian Coast expired. Yet, the international community remains silent. The committee—initially welcomed by the global community—has neither published its findings nor offered any explanation for the delay, raising serious questions about the sincerity of international commitments to justice and accountability in Syria.

Formed on March 10 by a decree from transitional Syrian President Ahmad Al-Sharaa, the committee was tasked with investigating atrocities that occurred between March 7 and 9. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, these massacres claimed the lives of 1,682 people across 63 documented incidents, marking a tragic milestone in Syria’s recent history.

As the deadline passes with no official statement or even a preliminary report, concerns are growing about the committee’s credibility and independence. The lack of transparency about its procedures, protection measures for witnesses, or inclusion of independent observers adds to the skepticism.

Meanwhile, the violence on the ground continues. The Syrian Observatory reports that 542 people, including women and children, have been killed since the committee’s formation through July 13. This ongoing bloodshed highlights the fragile state of justice and the deep-rooted culture of impunity.

Public doubt only intensifies when comparing the slow response to the coast massacres with the swift investigation into the bombing of Saint Elias Church in Al-Dweilaa, which identified suspects within hours. This inconsistency raises troubling questions about double standards, especially when crimes occur in politically sensitive areas or involve powerful actors.

The continued silence from the international community now carries both legal and moral weight. The committee’s formation was hailed as part of a broader commitment to transitional justice. Was that merely a symbolic gesture? Or are behind-the-scenes deals undermining the very principles of truth and accountability?

As public pressure grows and questions multiply, hope now rests on independent voices and human rights organizations to demand transparency, the release of findings, and clarity about the fate of a committee that was meant to deliver justice—not pacify public anger.