Inside the Coastal Incidents Trial – Assad’s Affiliates #3: Defense Witnesses’ Testimony
TRIAL OF The Coastal Incidents
Military Criminal Court – Aleppo, Syria
Trial Monitoring Summary #3 – Assad’s Affiliates
Hearing Date: March 15, 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 regime’s and 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 3rd trial monitoring report details day 4 in the trial of Assad’s affiliates pertaining to the coastal incident, taking place in Aleppo, Syria. On this trial day, the Accused and several Defense witnesses appeared before the Court. The witnesses testified in favor of the Accused, and the Prosecution requested time to respond. Consequently, the trial was adjourned until the next hearing.
Day 4 – March 15, 2026
The session commenced at 10:17AM. The audience included families of the Accused and several media representatives, alongside an extensive presence of Public Security forces.
The First Case:
The Accused, Maher O., Maher A., and Al-Waddah I., were called upon, and their Defense Counsel appeared with them. The Presiding Judge presented the military investigative judge’s indictment included in the file to the Accused, Al-Waddah I.,, as well as a new indictment issued against him by the Military Public Prosecution, in which Al-Waddah I. is accused of inciting strife, civil war, conspiracy, murder, and looting. The Accused was questioned regarding his statements on this matter and whether he had given any previous statements to the military investigative judge. Al-Waddah I. denied all crimes attributed to him.
A second file was received concerning Al-Waddah I., which involves the consolidation of the lawsuit with the case pending before the Court. In response to the Court’s question, the Accused denied the crimes attributed to him in the indictment issued in Case No. 105 - Preliminary Military Investigation - of the year 2026. He added that the allegation in the aforementioned decision is incorrect, and that he had no contact whatsoever with those individuals mentioned in the indictment: Suhail Al-Hassan, Rami Makhlouf, Ghiath Dallah, Mohammad Jaber, and others. He emphasized that the [armed] group is merely a page on Facebook and has no basis on the ground. The Accused then concluded by requesting acquittal.
The Prosecutor requested a judgment in accordance with the indictment, pointing out that this case regarding the accusation has been consolidated with the previous lawsuit and that the accusation is proven by virtue of the evidence presented in the file. Reference was then made here to the expert report.
Defense Counsel C2, [redacted name], requested a time extension to review and respond to the report.
The Defense Counsel stated that they have defense witnesses present in Court and requested to hear them. Consequently, the Presiding Judge ordered that the witnesses of the Accused, Maher O., be called.
Testimony of Defense Witnesses W8 for the Accused, Maher O.:
Witness W8, [redacted name], appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. The Witness then testified that he knows the Accused, Maher O., because he is his neighbor and from the same village. He further testified that he visited the Accused on March 6, 2025, between 6:00PM and 7:00PM because he was ill. W8 said that he saw the Accused at that time in his father’s house, but he did not notice him armed or in military uniform. W8 added that he knew the Accused had been expelled from the army several years ago and that he was working in agriculture, affirming that he had never heard of him having any [military] activities.
In response to a question by the Prosecutor, W8 stated that he has absolutely no knowledge of the video clip in which the Accused, Maher O., appeared, and that the distance between their houses was about two kilometers. He concluded by affirming that their village did not witness any clashes during the coastal incidents.
Witness W9, [redacted name], appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. In response to the Court’s question, he acknowledged that he knows the Accused, Maher O., because they are from the same village. W9 testified that he visited the Accused’s sick father in the evening on March 6, 2025, and that the Accused, Maher O., was present at the house at that time but was neither armed nor in a military uniform. W9 added that he did not hear of any [armed] activity for the Accused or any participation in the clashes that took place that day. The witness noted that no clashes occurred in his village, and that his house is about 22 meters away from the Accused’s house.
Upon questioning by the Prosecutor, W9 confirmed that what he mentioned was known to him by virtue of the friendship between him and the Accused’s father. W9 also denied knowing anything about the video clip he was asked about in Court. W9 added that he knew the Accused used to work in agriculture and freelance work.
The Accused, Maher O., declared that he accepts the testimony of the two witnesses.
Testimony of Defense Witness W10 for the Accused, Maher A.:
Witness W10, [redacted name], appeared before the Court and declared that the Accused is his maternal aunt’s son. The Prosecutor objected to hearing the witness due to the existence of a disqualifying kinship; however, the Court decided to hear the witness.
The witness testified that on March 6, 2025, he went from [redacted location] village to the village of the Accused, Maher A., and brought him banana saplings, and helped him plant the saplings that day. However, he was unable to return to his home due to the coastal incidents, so he stayed at the Accused’s house until the following day. W10 testified that the Accused was neither armed nor wearing a military uniform at the time, but rather had workers helping him plant trees. According to W10, the Accused was present with them at that time in the house and the agricultural land. The witness confirmed that he knew nothing about the video clip [concerning the Accused] and that there is no partnership between him and the Accused.
Witness W11, [redacted name], appeared before the Court. The witness testified that he knew the Accused, Maher A., through a neighborly relationship, and that he visited him on March 6, 2025, and helped him plant banana trees on his land adjacent to his house. W11 testified that the Accused was not armed or wearing a military uniform. He confirmed that he knew nothing about the video clip [concerning the Accused], but was rather surprised by it. W11 added that he knew the Accused used to work on his agricultural land and did not participate in any security or military operations.
In response to a question by the Prosecutor, W11 said that he and the Accused used to exchange agricultural assistance unpaid, and that he knew the Accused was poor.
Testimony of Defense Witnesses W12 for the Accused, Al-Waddah I.:
Witness W12, [redacted name], appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. W12 stated that there was no enmity or kinship between him and the Accused, Al-Waddah I.. W12 testified that he became acquainted with the Accused in 2019 during his work in tile polishing, as the Accused worked with him for about two or three years. At that time, W12 learned that the Accused was a lieutenant who had been discharged from military service. W12 recalled that he was passing by the Accused’s house on March 6, 2025, and saw the Accused’s wife in the street and asked her about her husband. She replied that he went to fetch his bike to go with her to have breakfast at his family’s house. W12 confirmed that he did not witness this himself but rather heard it from the Accused’s wife. He also denied knowing anything about the Accused’s relationship with any figure of the “former regime” or any foreign entity such as Iran or the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces. W12 further denied knowing whether the Accused worked at the Russian base, anything about the Accused’s role in the coastal incidents, or whether the Accused participated in any clashes.
The Accused declared that he accepts the testimony of W12.
Witness W13, [redacted name], appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. Upon questioning by the Court, he said he knew the Accused through the relationship between his and the Accused’s wives. W13 testified having met the Accused on March 6, 2025, at around 3:00PM in the street next to the Accused’s house, who invited W13 to have breakfast with him at his family’s house, but W13 turned down the invitation. The witness testified that the Accused was neither armed nor wearing a military uniform, and that he knew nothing about the Accused’s relationship with members of the “[Assad] regime,” particularly those in the military. W12 testified that he did not know if the Accused had any role in the coastal incidents or if he participated in any battles, nor about the standing of the Accused’s father and grandfather in the village. However, W13 added, he knew that the Accused was poor, working in agriculture and earning a daily-wage operating a “polishing” machine before he owned his own machine to work with.
The Accused declared that he accepts the testimony of W13.
The Defense Counsel and the Prosecutor requested a time extension to review the expert analysis. Therefore, it was decided to grant them an extension until the session of April 2, 2026, at 10:00 AM.
The Second Case:
The Accused, Mohammad S., was called, and Defense Counsel C3, [redacted name], appeared with him.
Defense Counsel C3 presented a two-page motion, which was read and filed.
The Prosecutor requested that an expert analysis be conducted on a video clip. The Defense Counsel had no objection to conducting the expert analysis. The Court decided to conduct the expert analysis on the video clip in question through the expert E1, [redacted name]. It was also decided to disburse an advance payment to the expert in the amount of 3,000 Syrian Pounds from the public offenses allocations upon completion of the task. Consequently, it was decided to adjourn the case until the session of April 2, 2026.
The Third Case:
The Accused, Hadi Q., was called.
Testimony of Defense Witness W14 for the Accused, Hadi Q.:
The first witness, [name unheard] W14, appeared before the Court. W14 said that he knew the Accused through a neighborly relationship. He testified that on the day the ambush took place, corresponding to March 6, 2025, he was far from the factory of the two Accused, Hadi and Shadi Q., and heard the sound of clashes in the factory area. He attempted to contact several individuals via mobile phone, but to no avail. Shortly after, the sound of the clashes subsided, so he called the Accused on his landline phone at his house adjacent to the factory, and learned from him that there were armed men who had come to the factory and set up an ambush for the Public Security forces and the Ministry of Defense. The Accused informed him that the armed men — whose number ranged between 30 to 40 individuals — threatened him for his failure to participate with them and that they would harm him if he did not destroy any traces of the ambush that was documented by the factory's surveillance cameras. Thus, W14 continued, the Accused disabled the cameras under threat. W14 added that he knows that the brother of the Accused, named Shadi Q., used to work in the tobacco department and possessed several weapons, some of which belonged to the Public Security forces, and he retained some because he was not given a receipt of delivery. The witness concluded by noting that everything he mentioned was based on information from the Accused himself.
In response to a question by the Defense Counsel, W14 replied that the Accused was detained due to the same issue for about five months in the Harem area prison, and that he learned that the Accused had been released, so W14 visited him after that. The witness added that he did not notice any movement of any “rebel party” in the ambush area during the day.
The second witness, W15 [redacted name], appeared before the Court. The witness affirmed that there is no kinship between him and the Accused, but that he knew the Accused who was his neighbor at the factory center where the ambush was set up. W15 testified that he was in his shop adjacent to the plastic warehouse belonging to the Accused and his brother on the day of the ambush from 9:00AM until 4:00PM. When the witness was at his house, which is five kilometers away from the factory, at around 11:00PM, he heard heavy gunfire from the direction of the shop. Consequently, he tried to call several people, including the Accused, but he was unable to do so due to the lack of a signal. When the witness called the factory and warehouse landline the following morning, one of the factory workers named O2 [redacted name] answered and informed W15 that the Public Security forces had been ambushed and a number of them were injured. However, O2 did not inform the witness of any involvement by the Accused. O2 also informed him about the occurrence of a second attack on the facility owned by the Accused on the day following the ambush. Many shots were fired, one of which hit the door of his shop and others hit some neighboring buildings. The witness said that he does not know the reason for the attack. According to his recollection, W15 visited the Accused after having been released from prison in the eighth month and learned from the Accused that he surrendered several pieces of weapons to the security forces in the area.
In response to a question by the Prosecutor, W15 denied having seen any armed guards for the facility.
The third witness, W16 [redacted name], appeared before the Court. The witness testified that there was no kinship or enmity between him and the Accused, and that he was the Accused's neighbor. W16 testified that he owns a shop adjacent to the facility of the Accused. On the day of the incident, he was at his parents' house in his village, which is two kilometers away from the place of the incident. Between 11:00PM and 12:00[AM], he heard the sound of heavy gunfire from the direction of the facility (the center). Consequently, he called the Accused, Hadi Q., on the center's landline. The Accused answered and informed him that he and his brother, Shadi Q., were in a room in the center and that there were clashes outside. The Accused further told W16 that two vehicles belonging to the “rebels” had arrived and clashed with the Public Security forces, noting that the clash did not exceed 15 minutes. The witness added that he learned the next day from his neighbors about an attack by groups of “rebels” on the center and its neighboring buildings, and the occurrence of several thefts at that time. The witness heard that the Accused and his brother were threatened and forced to destroy the content of the surveillance cameras.
In response to a question by the Prosecutor, W16 replied that the Accused and his brother are present in the center throughout the day until 11:00PM, and that a guard remains to watch over the center when they return home. Regarding the weapons belonging to the Accused, W16 said that Shadi Q. brought them from the tobacco department where he was working with the aim of preserving them. The witness heard that they were later surrendered to Public Security, and there was a video clip documenting that, according to the witness. W16 added that there were no guards for the center, but rather a worker who slept inside.
Upon questioning by the Defense Counsel, W16 said that he knew that the Accused had been detained a few days after the incident and stayed in prison for about five months due to the same incident, then he was released, after which W16 visited him.
The Defense Counsel requested a time extension to submit arguments.
The Accused, Hadi Q., testified that he was detained in Harem prison due to the same offense and was released after five months, and he signed a paper. He added that he was summoned to the Ain Al-Bayda police station after his release from prison and was asked to sign his release paper [note:It was unclear whether he signed one or more papers.] Two days later, a patrol from another police station arrived [and detained him], and he remains detained until now.
Mr. C2 [redacted name], Defense Counsel for the Accused, declared that he reiterates his previous statements and requests acquittal for his client. Consequently, the Court decided to grant the Public Prosecution time to submit its requests, and adjourned the session until April 2, 2026.
The Fourth Case:
The Accused, Hasan H., was called.
Testimony of Defense Witness W17 for the Accused, Hasan H.:
Witness W17, [redacted name], appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. In response to the Court’s question, he testified that he knew the Accused since they were from the same village. W17 also knew that the Accused left for Lebanon in mid 2024 and did not return until the eighth month of 2025. W17 further testified that the Accused did not witness the coastal incidents at all, nor did W17 see him coming to his house during that period. W17 heard that the Accused was residing in Al-Hamra area in Beirut, and he did not hear of any military or security involvement by the Accused.
Witness W18, [redacted name], appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. W18 testified that he knew the Accused through a neighborly relationship and that the Accused left [the country] in 2025, but he did not know the exact date, except that the Accused was not in the country during the coastal incidents. W18 did not hear of any military or security activity of the Accused. He indicated that his relationship with the Accused’s father, who lived next to the witness, is the source of his information.
The Defense Counsel asked the witness whether his client was subjected to torture during his interrogation, to which the Prosecutor objected, arguing that it was a leading question. When he was questioned by the Court, W18 replied that he heard from the Accused’s father that they took him [the Accused] to the hospital because he had signs of torture.
Witness W19, [redacted name], appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. W19 testified that there was no kinship or enmity between him and the Accused, and that he knew the Accused through his acquaintance with his mother because she is from their same area of [redacted location]. W19 further said that he used to communicate with the Accused using WhatsApp and knew that the Accused was in Beirut at the time of the coastal incidents. W19 recalled that the Accused visited him at his house at the beginning of the third month of 2025 and visited his maternal uncle, [redacted name], who lived in [redacted location]. W19 added that he did not know of any role for the Accused in the coastal incidents, pointing out that the Accused completed his mandatory military service and left the country for Lebanon in 2025, and that he was working in a shop in Beirut.
At this point, the Defense Counsel asked the witness about the date of the Accused's visit to him at his house in [redacted location]. The Prosecutor objected to re-questioning the witness about this matter again because it would include leading questions. However, the Presiding Judge decided to overrule the objection and re-pose the question to the witness. Thereupon, W19 corrected himself, noting that the Accused visited him at his house in 2024 before the liberation, and not in 2025 as he had previously mentioned.
[Note: A back-and-forth occurred regarding the date of the Accused’s visit to the witness, whether it was in 2024 or 2025 in the third month. The Presiding Judge clarified whether the visit was before or after the liberation. The witness confirmed that it was before the liberation, in the third month of 2024.]
The Defense Counsel stated that he reiterates his statements. The Prosecutor requested a time extension to submit arguments. Consequently, the Court decided to grant the Public Prosecution time and to adjourn the session until April 2, 2026.
The Fifth Case:
The Accused, Tahani S., was called, and he appeared along with an ad hoc, court-appointed Defense Counsel. The Counsel presented a three-page notice and requested the acquittal of his client.
The Prosecutor requested a time extension to submit arguments. Consequently, the Court decided to grant the Public Prosecution time and to suspend the session until April 2, 2026.
The proceedings were adjourned at 2:00PM.
The next trial day will be on April 2, 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