Apr 30, 2026 7 min read Coastal Incidents Trial

Inside the Coastal Incidents Trial – Assad’s Affiliates #2: AI Everywhere

TRIAL OF The Coastal Incidents

Military Criminal Court – Aleppo, Syria

Trial Monitoring Summary #2 – Assad’s Affiliates

Hearing Date: March 8, 2026

CAUTION: Some testimony may include graphic descriptions of torture, rape or other violent acts.

Note that this summary is not a verbatim transcript of the trial; it is merely an unofficial summary of the proceedings. 

Throughout this summary, [information located in brackets are notes from our trial monitor] and “information placed in quotes are statements made by the witness, Judges or counsel.” The names and identifying information of witnesses have been redacted.

[Note: SJAC continues to provide a summary of the proceedings while redacting certain details to protect witness privacy and to preserve the integrity of the trial.]

[Note: Following the first session of the trial, in which all the Accused — both Assad’s and the Government’s affiliates — appeared before the Court, the Accused were severed into two groups based on their affiliations. Therefore, the Syria Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC) decided to separate the trial reports according to the Accused’s affiliations.]

SJAC’s 2nd trial monitoring report details day 3 in the trial of the Assad’s affiliates pertaining to the coastal incident, taking place in Aleppo, Germany. On this trial day, the Court presented documents which the Prosecution claimed prove crimes attributed to the Accused. Some of the Accused admitted to certain parts of the contents therein while denying others. Additionally, one of them alleged that he was subjected to torture during his interrogation.

Day 3 – March 8, 2026

[SJAC’s trial monitor arrived at the courtroom at 10:00AM. Some media representatives and organizers were present; however, there was no security presence as seen in previous sessions. The Accused arrived at 11:08AM, accompanied by military police personnel. The attendance of media representatives and the families of the Accused increased until the courtroom was nearly full.]

The First Case

The Accused Maher O., Maher A., and Al-Waddah I. were called, accompanied by their appointed Defense Counsel.

The Prosecutor commenced the session with an oral motion in which he adopted the Indictment. He added that the Accused appearing before the Court are members of the Al-Makhzoum armed group, which was founded by Al-Waddah I. and Maher A. on sectarian grounds and was under the supervision of the “criminals” Ghiyath Dalleh, Suhail Al-Hasan, and Brigadier General Ahmed Saleh. He mentioned that they contributed to the attacks on the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior, participating alongside other accused individuals and sectarian figures hostile to the Syrian State, which “was fully committed to preserving their lives, yet they met this commitment with a commitment to our death and killing,” according to the Prosecutor. He then added that he was placing the following set of documents and evidence before the Court:

The First Document: A photograph of Al-Waddah I. holding a severed head. The Prosecutor commented: “The Accused claimed it was AI-generated, but he forgot that such applications adhere to the highest human and ethical standards.” The Prosecution requested a technical expert evaluation of this photograph.
The Second Document: A document containing the full names of the members of the Al-Makhzoum group.
The Third Document: A photograph showing the moment of Al-Waddah I.’s arrest, appearing in full field and military uniform at that time. According to the Prosecutor, there is also a video clip in which the Accused threatened the army and security forces in the Syrian coastal area. “His denial is nothing but a desperate attempt to evade responsibility,” the Prosecutor added.
The Fourth Document: A video clip of the Accused Maher A. threatening the army and security forces.
[sic! Note: The “Fifth Document” was mentioned later when presented to the expert, which was a conversation between Al-Waddah I. and Suheil Al-Hasan.]
The Sixth Document: Contained a conversation between Al-Waddah I. and Miqdad Fatiha, in which he identified army positions.
The Seventh Document: An Al Jazeera report discussing Al-Waddah I. and his role in the coastal incidents in 2025.

After hearing the motions of the Prosecutor, the Presiding Judge decided to display the photographs submitted by the Prosecution for technical expert analysis. The Judge commissioned the expert, E1 [redacted name], to conduct the evaluation in order to verify their authenticity and whether the clips were real or established by Artificial Intelligence. The Presiding Judge set 3,000 Syrian Pounds as an advance payment for the expert. Once the expert was called, he appeared and was informed of the scope of the analysis. The expert said he was willing to perform the task free of charge and assume the duty immediately. The Court decided to display the clips in question for the expert and the Accused to review.

[The aforementioned documents were displayed on the screen in the courtroom]

Responding to the Presiding Judge’s question regarding the First Document, the Accused Al-Waddah I. did not acknowledge the authenticity of the photograph, claiming it was fabricated. Regarding the Second Document, the Accused stated it was intended for raising money. As for the Third Document, the Accused admitted that the photograph was of him, but he objected to the weapon being there, claiming it was placed next to him. Concerning the Fifth Document, the Accused acknowledged it was authentic and testified that he made the call to the individual Suhail Al-Hasan at the request of a Turkish officer named Mousa, who wished to know what would happen with Al-Hasan. Al-Waddah I. commented on the Sixth Document, saying he did not recognize the voice in part of the clip, that there was no communication between him and Miqdad Fatiha in this clip, and that Maher A.’s voice can be heard in part of the video. Finally, regarding the Seventh Document, Al-Waddah I. admitted that the interview in the Al Jazeera report was authentic, but noted it was conducted during his detention at the Criminal Security Branch in Latakia.

Responding to the Presiding Judge’s question regarding the Fourth Document, the Accused Maher A. testified that the clip was authentic and that its purpose was only to obtain financial support, not for funding.

The expert assumed his assignment and requested time to examine the file. The request was granted, and the Court decided to adjourn the session until Sunday, March 15, 2026.

The Second Case

The Accused Tahani S. was called and appeared with the ad hoc court-appointed Defense Counsel, Mr. C2 [redacted name]. The Prosecution requested a ruling in accordance with the Indictment. The Defense Counsel requested an extension of time, which was granted by the Court to submit his pleas and defense until the session on March 15, 2026.

The Third Case

The Accused Hasan H. was called and appeared with the ad hoc court-appointed Defense Counsel, Mr. C2 [redacted name]. The Prosecutor requested that the Accused be convicted of the crime of sedition and that the maximum penalties be imposed upon him in accordance with the Indictment. The Defense Counsel presented a four-page note containing a list of defense witnesses; the Prosecutor - upon his own request - reviewed it and subsequently declared he had no objection to summoning the defense witnesses. The Court decided to summon the defense witnesses and tasked the Defense Counsel with bringing them to the hearing on March 15, 2026.

The Fourth Case

The Accused Hadi Q. was called and appeared with Defense Counsel C2 [redacted name], who was ad hoc appointed counsel by the Bar Association. The Defense Counsel noted he had previously presented a list of defense witnesses and moved for them to be summoned, explaining that he was willing to bring them whenever the Court so decided. The Prosecutor declared he had no objection to hearing the witnesses. The Court decided to summon the defense witnesses and tasked the Defense Counsel with bringing them, then adjourned the session until Sunday, March 15, 2026.

The Fifth Case

The Accused Mohammad S. and Ali Y. were called; the latter did not appear, though his notice of service was noted.

The Accused Shmallas appeared with his Defense Counsel, Mr. C3 [redacted name]. The Accused was informed of the charges against him, which included inciting sedition and sectarian war, and murder under Articles 298, 299, 300 [and 301] of the Penal Code. He was also accused of forming armed gangs. The Accused denied the charges against him and the statements in the Military Police report, asserting — as he previously stated to the Investigating Judge — that they were taken under violence and duress. He added that he still bears traces of torture on his back, eye, and leg.

The Accused reiterated his statements made before the Military Investigating Judge and the Military Criminal Court during the administrative session, adding that he requested to be examined by a physician to prove the torture inflicted upon him. Furthermore, he testified that investigators recorded statements during his detention at the Political Security branch in Latakia that he did not make, and that they forced his fingerprint onto them. He further testified that he did not attack the public security forces, did not participate in the coastal incidents, possessed no weapons, and did not lead any group to fight the security and defense forces. He concluded by noting that no weapon was found in his possession, his home was not searched, and he was unarmed when he was arrested.

Thereupon, the Prosecutor requested to show a video clip proving that the Accused Mohammad S. participated in the coastal events and asked for it to be displayed on the screen in court for the Accused to review. After displaying the video clip by the Court, the Accused denied its content was authentic, noting that he had been questioned about it during the preliminary investigation.

The Prosecutor requested a technical expert analysis of the video clip, including both audio and video. The Defense Counsel requested an extension of time to respond to the Prosecution's requests, which the Court granted, suspending the session.

The proceedings were adjourned at 1:00PM.

The next trial day will be on March 15, 2026, at 10AM.

___________________________

For more information or to provide feedback, please contact SJAC at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to SJAC’s newsletter for updates on our work