Inside the Coastal Incidents Trial – Assad’s Affiliates #5: Extension of Time and Plea for Acquittal

TRIAL OF THE COASTAL INCIDENTS

Military Criminal Court – Aleppo, Syria 

Trial Monitoring Summary #5 – Assad’s Affiliates 

Hearing Date: April 23, 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 5th trial monitoring report details day six in the trial of Assad’s affiliates pertaining to the coastal incident, taking place in Aleppo, Syria. On this trial day, eight Accused and their Defense Counsel appeared before the Court. Some of the Defense Counsels moved for the acquittal of their clients, while others requested an extension of time to complete certain procedures. A new expert was appointed to conduct an expert analysis that had been previously requested.

Day 6 – April 23, 2026

The trial commenced at 10:00AM. There were between 15 to 20 family members of the Accused present.

The First Case:

The Accused, Hasan H., was called. When asked if he had a Counsel, he replied that he had the ad hoc court-appointed Defense Counsel [redacted name] C2 and wished to be represented by him as his Defense Counsel.

The Prosecution adopted its prior demands and requested a ruling in accordance with the indictment.

The Accused was asked if he had any other statements or defense arguments. He asserted that he did not participate in any terrorist act against the State and moved for his acquittal.

Defense Counsel C2 repeated his prior defenses. The Prosecutor repeated his arguments.

The Court decided to adjourn the session for review to May 14, 2026.

The Second Case:

The Accused, Hadi Q. and Shadi Q., were called. Defense Counsel [redacted name] C8 appeared to defend them, presenting a new power of attorney for both Accused.

Defense Counsel C8 presented a prior record letter concerning the Accused, Hadi Q., and requested that the letter be referred to Harem Prison to prove that a prior release order had been issued for the Accused for the same offense.

[Note: There was a child crying in the courtroom. The Presiding Judge requested that the child be removed. His mother took him out to ensure quietness.]

The Court ordered Defense Counsel C8 to provide a statement regarding the lawsuit referenced in his request.

Defense Counsel C8 requested an extension of time, which he was granted.

The session was adjourned to May 14, 2026.

The Third Case:

The Accused, Mohammad S., was called. Defense Counsel C3, [redacted name], appeared as his Counsel.

Defense Counsel C3 presented a two-page motion, requesting - in its essence - the acquittal of his client of the charges brought against him and for him to be  released rightly or on bail. Furthermore, C3 repeated his prior arguments.

The Prosecutor requested that the Accused be convicted in accordance with the indictment and that the maximum penalties be imposed upon him. He also repeated his prior arguments.

When the Accused was asked if he had anything he wished to add, he declined .

The Court decided to adjourn the session for review to May 14, 2026.

The Fourth Case:

The Accused, Maher O. and Maher A., were called. Defense Counsel C3 [redacted name] appeared, representing them. The Accused, Al-Waddah I., was called. Defense Counsel C8 [redacted name] appeared, representing him.

Defense Counsel C8 stated that he was ready to pay the fee of the expert analysis [on a video clip related to the Accused, Al-Waddah I.. For more details, please see Trial Report #4] that he had previously requested, and moved for the expert to be appointed.

Defense Counsel C3 repeated his prior arguments.

The Prosecutor repeated his prior arguments.

The Court decided to appoint Expert E2 [redacted name], and to conduct the expert analysis after the fees are paid, with the date to be scheduled thereafter. The Court then adjourned the session to May 14, 2026.

The Fifth Case:

The Accused, Tahani S., was called. Defense Counsel C2, [redacted name], appeared with him.

The Court ordered Defense Counsel C2 to submit a copy of the ruling of the Military Court in Latakia issued on December 22, 2021, which convicts the Accused of a prior offense and had been issued against the Accused, Tahani S., for the felony of “forming a gang villains .”

Defense Counsel C8 requested an extension of time to obtain the requested ruling.

The Court decided to grant C8 an extension of time and adjourned the session to May 14, 2026.

The proceedings were adjourned at 12:00PM.

The next trial day will be on May 14, 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