Inside the Coastal Incidents Trial #1: All Eyes on Me
TRIAL OF The Coastal Incidents
Military Criminal Court –Aleppo, Syria
Trial Monitoring Summary #1
Hearing Date: December 18, 2025
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 provides a summary of the proceedings while redacting certain details to protect witness privacy and to preserve the integrity of the trial.]
[The next hearing date scheduled for January 22 was subsequently delayed. SJAC will provide updates on the next hearing date as this information is received.]
SJAC’s 1st trial monitoring report details day 2 in the trial pertaining to the coastal incident, taking place in Aleppo, Syria. On this trial day, several witnesses were heard regarding four cases. The Defense submitted a request to summons and hear witnesses, but the Presiding Judge preferred to wait until the Prosecution witnesses had testified.
Day 2 – December 18, 2025
[Note: The Syria Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC) was unable to attend the proceedings of the first day. SJAC will publish trial reports consecutively, commencing from the second day.]
[The SJAC monitor arrived at the courtroom at 10:00 AM, the appointed time for the commencement of the trial session. However, entry was denied as access was restricted exclusively to members of the press and Counsel. Contact was established with the Media Coordination Officer at the Ministry of Justice; subsequently, after approximately thirty minutes, a person was dispatched to facilitate the monitor's entry into the courtroom.
Upon entry, the monitor observed a woman in the public gallery addressing the Presiding Judge and requesting to speak. The Presiding Judge asked who she was, to which she identified herself as the mother of one of the Accused. The Presiding Judge replied that she was not allowed to speak, a right that was reserved for the Accused’s Defense Counsel.
Approximately 90% of the public gallery seating was occupied. A significant number of media personnel were in attendance, with numerous cameras present for the live broadcast of the proceedings. It was noted that the Accused were removed from the dock and stood before the Court without handcuffs. No microphones were placed before the Accused; consequently, the public — particularly those in the rear rows — could not hear them clearly. Nonetheless, their statements remained audible. Aside from some media activity, it was generally quiet in the courtroom.
The First Case
The Accused, Tahani A., was summoned, and the Court appointed Mr. Mazen J. as his Defense Counsel.
[Note: This constituted the Accused’s first public hearing, following a preliminary interrogation conducted in the Court’s private chambers [in-camera], which was not open to the public.]
When questioned about his statements, the Accused responded that he was not among the individuals who entered the villa. The Presiding Judge asked the Accused whether his job was restricted to the theft of military vehicles and participation in armed hostilities. The Accused replied that he did not participate in the assembly [i.e., the gathering of former regime forces] that took place at “Ayat’s” villa. He further testified that he was unfamiliar with the premises and had not witnessed any such assembly. He added that his role was confined to the theft of military vehicles, which he disposed of through Samer S. across Aleppo, Homs, and Idlib.
The representative of the Public Prosecutor requested the conviction of the Accused on the felony of sedition and demanded the imposition of statutory penalties. He then asked for an extension of time to name the Prosecution witnesses. The extension was granted to both the Prosecutor and the Defense Counsel, and the proceedings were adjourned until January 22, 2026.
The Second Case:
The case in re the Accused, Mohammad T.
The Accused was called and appeared before the Court freely [outside the dock and without handcuffs]. The Accused, Shafiq and Noor were duly called but failed to appear. The Court did not receive a note with the service of process outcome regarding the indictment upon the aforementioned parties. Therefore, the Presiding Judge ordered confirmation of the service of process, as a prerequisite for the joinder of parties to be fulfilled. The litigation was subsequently adjourned until the session scheduled for January 22, 2026.
The Third Case:
The lawsuit in re the Accused, Hadi Q.
The Accused, Hadi Q., was called and appeared. He was removed from the dock and was attended by court-appointed Defense Counsel.
The Prosecutor tendered a written notice requesting the conviction of the Accused, Hadi Q., and the imposition of the maximum principal and ancillary penalties. The Prosecutor petitioned the Court to provide large display screens within the courtroom to exhibit photographs to the Accused and the audience, for the purposes of verification and confrontation of the Accused with them. The Prosecutor then asked for an extension of time to submit a list of witnesses (Prosecution witnesses).
The Presiding Judge questioned the Accused regarding his statements, noting that he could provide his testimony freely, without duress or coercion. The Accused testified that his brother, [redacted name], was an employee of a governmental entity and possessed weapons (in his capacity as Head of Security Guards) and surrendered a portion of said arms to his official employing entity, retaining six rifles. The Accused affirmed that he did not participate in the ambush targeting their [his and his brother's] factory. He further testified that the incident occurred at 11:00 PM, involving ten-armed individuals in military clothing.
Upon questioning, the Accused replied that the remaining corpses of the Public Security [Forces] [of the transitional Syrian Government] were handed over to the Public Security [Forces]. The Accused testified that he did not observe a vehicle of the Public Security [Forces] passing but rather sighted their second vehicle from a distance. He added that he did not know the fatality count and noted that his neighbor, of the Al-Ashqar family, rendered first aid to the wounded.
The Presiding Judge pointed out that in his prior statements, the Accused claimed possession of two Russian rifles [AK-47], whereas today he claimed there were six firearms. The Accused replied that the firearms [redacted name] possessed totaled six pieces: two Russian rifles and four NATO rifles, noting that [redacted name] served as head of guards at the Tobacco Public Establishment premises.
In response to the Court’s question regarding the reason for destroying the surveillance camera hard drive, the Accused replied that there was a power cut during the ambush. He testified that he had destroyed the surveillance cameras to ensure his and his brother’s safety, given the power cut and since they had weapons, both would be accused of participation in the ambush. He added that the source of the NATO weaponry was the same governmental department where his brother [redacted name] was employed.
The Defense Counsel tendered a notice proposing Defense witnesses; however, the Presiding Judge ruled that naming Defense witnesses would proceed only after the Prosecution witnesses and the Plaintiffs’ witnesses have been heard.
In response to the Prosecution’s question regarding the type of the weapons delivered to his brother [redacted name], the Accused replied that there were documents from the competent governmental authority which could verify that. He added that his brother had previously attempted to exchange certain weapons, but they were refused receipt as they were defective.
The Prosecutor submitted a notice and moved for an extension of time to name the Prosecution witnesses.
The court-appointed Defense Counsel, [redacted name] — representing one of the Accused — submitted a request to hear Defense Witnesses. The Presiding Judge instructed him to hold the motion in abeyance until the Prosecution witnesses and the Plaintiffs’ witnesses have been heard.
The Judge granted the Prosecutor the requested extension of time to name the Prosecution Witnesses and adjourned the session until January 22, 2026.
The Fourth Case:
The lawsuit in re the Accused, Maher O., Maher A., and Al-Waddah I.
The Accused, Maher O. and Maher A., were duly called to appear. Mr. [redacted name] appeared as court-appointed Defense Counsel on behalf of the Accused, Al-Waddah I.
The Prosecution requested convicting all the Accused for the offenses referred against them and questioning the Accused, Al-Waddah I., regarding a video clip depicting him holding the severed head of an individual from the Public Security [Forces]. Finally, the Prosecutor requested an extension of time to submit a list of Prosecution witnesses.
Questioning of Maher O.:
Upon inquiring whether he had anything further to say, with reference to his appearance in a video clip soliciting money, the Accused, Maher O., reaffirmed his prior statements regarding his presence on the agricultural lands of Maher A. during the events in question, and the fact that he was using a motorcycle belonging to Maher A.. He further testified having heard sounds of armed hostilities emanating from the Naval College, located approximately eight kilometers from his position. Regarding the video clip, the Accused stated that it was filmed at the residence of Maher A. on July 7, 2025, the same date on which both were apprehended. The Accused contended that their arrest was not occasioned by the video but occurred while they were en route to the village of Athira [name unclear]; they were intercepted at a Public Security checkpoint, at which time Maher A. was in possession of a handgun. Upon Maher A.’s attempt to discard the firearm by throwing it onto the roadway, the Accused continued, he attracted the suspicion of Public Security [Forces], which subsequently detained both of them and seized the handgun. The Accused, Maher O., averred that the footage was circulated only after their detention and that they derived no benefit therefrom, nor did they receive any pecuniary support. When questioned by the Presiding Judge about the identity of the person who commissioned the video, Maher O. replied that it was filmed at the behest of a Syrian national known as “Abu Hasan,” whose true identity remains unknown to them. He added that the video clip contained threats directed at the Public Security Forces and was discovered on Maher A.’s phone at the time of their arrest.
The Prosecutor raised a question regarding the sighting of the Accused, Maher O., alongside Maher A. and others, preparing for resistance [actions] against the Public Security [Forces] and military operations against the army. The Accused responded that he had previously stated that before the Investigating Judge to maintain the consistency of his statements since he had stated that to Public Security [Forces], noting that he was subjected to torture during the preliminary interrogation and that sectarian slurs were directed at him throughout the process, recalling that upon entry, he was immediately asked, “Are you Sunni or Alawite?” and added that interrogators would “cock a handgun and place it against his head.”
Questioning of Maher A.:
The Accused testified that he was a farmer and had nothing to do with military hostilities. He testified having been subjected to torture during interrogation, that his all his ribs were fractured and that he was struck with rifle butts, noting that “the beating was troublesome.” He further added that he was compelled to give his fingerprint to his statement. According to him, the video recording was not intended for publication, and it was rather published by the Public Security. The Presiding Judge then wondered whether the Public Security would plausibly publish footage containing incitement against themselves.
The Presiding Judge noted that weapons were visible in the recorded footage and inquired as to their ownership. The Accused replied that one Russian rifle belonged to him, whereas the remainder of the weapons belonged to Al-Waddah I., who had brought them to the Accused and subsequently retrieved them.
The Presiding Judge pointed out that the Accused, Al-Waddah I., claimed the weapons belonged to Maher A.; the latter denied this allegation, affirming they belonged to Al-Waddah I. He then clarified that only the Russian rifle was his, explaining that he had found it on the public highway where forces of the fallen regime had abandoned their arms. He further explained that military vehicles were stationary on the roads, laden with weapons, from which he procured his firearm.
The Presiding Judge sought to ascertain the nature of the relationship between the Accused and Al-Waddah I. The Accused explained that they became acquainted two months prior, after which a pecuniary dispute arose between them. He added that a neighbor of his had introduced Al-Waddah I. to him as a Captain in the Syrian Army stationed at the Russian base.
According to the Accused, Maher A., the video was filmed at the behest of an individual called “Abu Hasan,” who was to secure funding for them. The clip, the Accused continued, constituted a threat directed at the security forces, and would have generated funds for them. The footage featured several individuals, including two fifteen-year-old young men - showing a group standing - to secure the sum.
The Presiding Judge asked whether the funds were intended to finance military operations or for subsistence. The Accused, Maher A., replied that the sum was assistance for subsistence, explaining that Abu Hasan possessed no funds himself but intended to show the footage to a third party who would provide aid.
The Presiding Judge asked if any other parties from outside the country had communicated with them. The Accused, Maher A., responded that there were friends via Al-Waddah I., who was in communication with Iraqi nationals he had met on Facebook: One such individual was called [redacted name], of the Popular Mobilization Forces قوات الحشد الشعبي, who communicated with Al-Waddah I. and subsequently obtained Maher A.’s number to communicate with him. The Accused asserted that [redacted name] did not send anything or money, but merely inquired after their well-being.
The Presiding Judge inquired regarding the identity of “Al-Makhzoum;” the Accused replied that it is a Facebook page symbolizing one of Al-Waddah I.’s forefathers.
Questioning of Al-Waddah I.:
The Accused was shown a photograph depicting multiple firearms. Al-Waddah I. remarked by saying that he reiterates his prior statements, amending that of the weapons visible in the video recording, three belonged to him, whereas the fourth was the property of Maher A.
Upon being questioned regarding the provenance of said arms, he replied that while hunting birds, he discovered the weapons inside a “Shwaal [Arabic: a large burlap sack]” following the events of March 6, 2025; as they had been discarded upon his own [namely, Al-Waddah I.’s] agricultural land. The Accused further added that he surrendered said weapons to the State via the Mukhtar [i.e. Headman] of his village, [redacted location], who in turn delivered them to Public Security.
With reference to the fact that the representative of the Public Prosecution had reviewed a video recording depicting the Accused holding the severed head of a member of Public Security Forces, the Accused responded that he had viewed the images, and they were fabricated utilizing Photoshop and Artificial Intelligence, denying any attribution to himself. He added that the images were inauthentic and were disseminated subsequent to the first trial hearing.
The Presiding Judge inquired whether the Accused served in the Republican Guard [of Bashar Al-Assad], which the Accused denied. He testified that he had been an officer in the Syrian Arab Army but was discharged due to his refusal to execute military orders, holding the rank of lieutenant at the material time.
When questioned regarding his association with the Russian officer, the individual named [redacted name], and the Israeli officer, he replied that he was employed by the Russian officer in the capacity as a driver. Through this employment, the Accused added, he became acquainted with a Turkish national who communicated with the Accused to coordinate with Public Security. The Accused further testified that it was he who had lured [redacted name] from Aleppo to Tartous with the intent of removing him from the front lines, under the pretext that his presence was required there and to lead operations against the Public Security. He further added that [redacted name] had threatened him and accused him of colluding with the Public Security.
Defense Counsel tendered a letter issued by the Mukhtar of [redacted location] village, alongside a three-page pleading containing a list of Defense witnesses whom he stood ready to produce.
The Presiding Judge granted the Prosecutor an extension of time to submit the list of Prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, the Presiding Judge ruled that the hearing of Defense witnesses be held in abeyance pending the conclusion of hearing the Prosecution witnesses and subsequently adjourned the proceedings until Thursday, January 22, 2026.
Whereupon the Presiding Judge declared the session closed.
The proceedings were adjourned at 12:00PM.
The next trial day will be on January 22, 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