Inside the Coastal Incidents Trial – Assad’s Affiliates #4: New Evidence?

TRIAL OF The Coastal Incidents

Military Criminal Court – Aleppo, Syria

Trial Monitoring Summary #4 – Assad’s Affiliates

Hearing Date: April 2, 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 4th trial monitoring report details day 5 in the trial of Assad’s affiliates pertaining to the coastal incident, taking place in Aleppo, Syria. On this trial day, the Court assigned a new ad hoc court-appointed Defense Counsel to defend some of the Accused, who requested acquittal for one of them. The Prosecution reiterated its demand for the imposition of maximum penalties and presented new evidence consisting of two video clips showing some of the Accused. The Defense Counsel requested an expert analysis of the video. The Court granted the Defense an extension of time and adjourned the trial until the next hearing.

Day 5 – April 2, 2026

The Accused were brought into the courtroom at 10:00 AM. There was a limited attendance of the media and the families of the Accused.

The First Case:

The Accused, Hadi Q., was called, but his previously ad hoc court-appointed Defense Counsel did not appear with him. Therefore, the Court appointed Counsel C7 [redacted name] as his ad hoc court-appointed Defense Counsel.

The Prosecutor reiterated the Prosecution’s previous demands and requested that the Accused be sentenced to the maximum penalties.

Counsel C7 requested an extension of time to respond and present the defense arguments for the Accused.

The trial was adjourned to the session of April 23, 2026.

The Second Case:

The Accused, Tahani S., was called. The Court appointed Counsel C7 [redacted name] as his ad hoc court-appointed Defense Counsel and requested him to defend the Accused.

The Prosecutor reiterated the previous demands and requested that the Accused be sentenced to the maximum penalties.

Counsel C7 adopted the defense brief submitted by the previous ad hoc court-appointed Defense Counsel, and added that he requests acquittal and clemency for his client.

The Prosecutor reiterated the previous statements.

The Court decided to take the case files under advisement, and adjourned the trial to the session of April 23, 2026.

The Third Case:

The Accused, Hasan H., was called, and the Court appointed Counsel C7 [redacted name] as his ad hoc court-appointed Defense Counsel.

The Prosecutor adopted his previous memorandum and the indictment, requesting that the maximum penalties be imposed upon the Accused.

Counsel C7 requested an extension of time to present the defense memorandum for the Accused.

The Prosecutor reserved the right to reply until after the submission of the Defense Counsel's arguments.

The Court decided to grant the Defense Counsel an extension of time and adjourned the trial to the session of April 23, 2026.

The Fourth Case:

The Accused, Mohammad S., was called, and Counsel C3, [redacted name], appeared with him. The Accused, Ali M., was absent.

An expert analysis report consisting of nine pages was received by the Court. In essence, the report noted that there was no evidence or indications of alterations to the images and video clips included in the analysis, and that they were authentic and unfabricated.

Counsel C3 requested an extension of time to respond to the expert analysis and to name witnesses.

The Court decided to grant the Defense an extension of time and to suspend the session until April 23, 2026.

The Fifth Case:

The Accused, Maher O. and Maher A., were called, and Counsel C3, [redacted name], appeared with them. The Accused, Al-Waddah I., was called, The Court appointed Counsel C7 [redacted name] as his ad hoc court-appointed Defense Counsel and requested him to defend the Accused.

The Prosecutor stated that he possesses new documents related to the case, consisting of two video clips. After that, he made a statement to the effect that the formed brigade is a real brigade, not a sham one as claimed by the Accused, and presented documents proving this, consisting of a video clip showing the Accused, Maher O., with the individual named Miqdad Fatiha, and another video clip showing the Accused, Maher A., torturing a member of the brigade because he had sold his rifle. The Prosecutor requested that the two video clips be displayed in the courtroom, and presented a written memorandum containing all the details. The Court agreed to display the video clips to the Accused and the audience to verify their authenticity.

After the [first] video clip was displayed, the Accused, Al-Waddah I., was requested to comment on the video clip; he admitted that the image indicated by a red circle was his image, and that the person next to him was Miqdad Fatiha. The Accused, Al-Waddah I., added that the clips were filmed and published one day prior to the liberation, that he had no connection to the coastal incidents, and that he did not threaten the State, admitting the authenticity of the clip.

The Prosecutor stated that the clip was published in January of last year [i.e., 2025], and was in preparation for the coastal incidents. He then requested that an expert analysis be conducted on the clip. He also noted that the Accused was carrying a military weapon, namely a Kalashnikov rifle [AK 47].

[The second video clip was displayed.]

The Accused, Maher A., stated that the image appearing in the clip is his image, that the person lying on the ground is named Ali M., and that the third person is named O3 [redacted name]. The Accused, Maher A., indicated that the reason for filming the clip was that Ali M. had stolen a Kalashnikov rifle and an amount of 300 dollars from O3, who was demanding them back. [O3] filmed that clip while stepping on the car tire in which Ali M.'s legs were placed. The Accused, Maher A., testified that the Accused, Al-Waddah I., was the one speaking in the clip, saying, “This person was stealing weapons and selling them. These weapons that we were collecting from people to defend the people and our honor.” Another video clip was displayed once, and then once more for verification and scrutiny. In response to the Court's question, the Accused, Al-Waddah I., acknowledged the clip’s content and admitted that he had filmed it himself at the home of the Accused, Maher A.. He added that the clip was for bragging and holding the Accused [i.e., Ali M.] accountable for stealing the weapon and money.

The Prosecutor adopted what was in the video clips that were admitted to by the two Accused, Maher A. and Al-Waddah I..

At this point, the President of the Military Court intervened in his capacity as one of the representatives of the Public Prosecution and confirmed the statements of Al-Waddah I. in the displayed video.

Herein, Counsel C8, [redacted name], appeared on behalf of the Accused, Al-Waddah I., and presented a power of attorney from the Bar Association for his client.

The Judge admonished Counsel C8 that the sessions begin promptly at 10:00 AM and that his delay would not stay the trial, and requested him to adhere to the schedule.

C8, Defense Counsel for the Accused, Al-Waddah I., requested that a technical expert analysis be conducted on the video clip showing his client, to determine its publication date and verify its authenticity.

The Court decided to conduct a technical expert analysis on the video clip, ordered the party requesting the expert evaluation to pay an amount of 3,000 New Syrian Pounds, and deferred naming the expert until after payment.

Counsel C8 requested an extension of time to pay and to prepare the defense arguments, which he was granted by the Court, and the trial was then adjourned.

The proceedings were adjourned at 12:00PM.

The next trial day will be on April 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