Inside the Coastal Incidents Trial – Assad’s Affiliates #9: Two Expert Reports: One Received, One Pending

TRIAL OF THE COASTAL INCIDENTS

Military Criminal Court – Aleppo, Syria 

Trial Monitoring Summary #9 – Assad’s Affiliates 

Hearing Date: September 10, 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 9th trial monitoring report details day 10 in the trial of Assad’s affiliates pertaining to the coastal incident, taking place in Aleppo, Syria. On this trial day, seven Accused appeared before the Court. An expert report was submitted regarding one of the Accused, concluding that there is a 90% match between his voice and the voice of the Accused in a video clip retrieved from a mobile phone. The Court was awaiting the submission of another expert report concerning an image depicting an Accused holding a severed head; however, the expert failed to attend the session. One Accused requested that his case be severed from that of another Accused, but his motion was denied.

Day 9 – July 10, 2026

A mistake occurred, resulting in the pro-government affiliated Accused being brought to Court instead of pro-Assad affiliates. Consequently, they were returned to prison, and the pro-Assad affiliates were brought, delaying the trial until 1:30PM, at which time the proceedings commenced.

The First Case:

The Accused, Hasan H., was called. An ad hoc court-appointed Defense Counsel appeared with him.

The case was adjourned until  September 17, 2026 so that judges could rule on the case.

The Second Case:

The Accused, Hadi Q., was called. A Defense Counsel appeared with him.

The case was adjourned to September 17, 2026.

The Third Case:

The Accused, Mohammad S., was called. His Defense Counsel C11 [redacted name] did not appear with him. An ad hoc court-appointed Counsel was assigned for him.

The latest four-page expert report was submitted. The Presiding Judge read aloud the summary of the report, which indicated that the expert was able to recover the original clip from the Accused's phone along with several other pieces of data. Upon comparing both clips, the expert established that the voices matched between the video clip depicting the Accused abusing individuals coming from Idlib and the clip recovered from the Accused's mobile phone, with a 90% match between both voices in the two clips.

The Accused and his Defense Counsel were asked if they had any response or objection to the expert report. The Accused denied having any objection and reiterated his statements.

The case was adjourned to September 17, 2026.

The Fourth Case:

The Accused, Tahani S., was called. An ad hoc court-appointed Defense Counsel appeared with him.

The case was adjourned to September 17, 2026.

The Fourth Case:

The Accused, Maher O., Maher A., and Al-Waddah I. were called. Their ad hoc court-appointed Counsel appeared with them.

Expert E2 [redacted name] was called, but he failed to appear. The Court has not received the expert report he was commissioned to submit.

The Presiding Judge referred to the previous expert report concerning a 9:34-minute video clip. The Presiding Judge mentioned what Miqdad Fatiha said in the video, pointing out that a man standing beside Miqdad Fatiha, was heard supporting and backing him.

The Presiding Judge wanted to know whether the Accused Al-Waddah I. was the one speaking in the video. The Accused denied it.

The Presiding Judge stated that the expert report indicated that the video clip was published between January 29 and 30, 2025.

The Presiding Judge clarified that the Court is awaiting the report of Expert E2 regarding the image depicting the Accused Al-Waddah I. holding a severed head.

The Accused Al-Waddah I. testified that the video clip was filmed on December 8, 2024, and not in the January 2025; that he was present in the video alongside Miqdad Fatiha, but did not utter a single word; that he was wearing civilian clothes and slinging Miqdad Fatiha’s rifle over his shoulder; and that the voice in the second clip was not his.

The Court decided to re-issue the summons to Expert E2 and assign him the task through one of its members.

The case was adjourned pending the expert report to September 17, 2026.

One of the Accused [probably, Maher A.] requested that his case be severed from that of Al-Waddah I.. The Presiding Judge responded that the law permits the joinder of cases, not the severance of one from the other.

The proceedings were adjourned at 2:30PM.

The next trial day will be on September 17 & 24, 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