Inside the Coastal Incidents Trial – Government’s Affiliates #1: Let not the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good
TRIAL OF THE COASTAL INCIDENTS
Military Criminal Court – Aleppo, Syria
Trial Monitoring Summary #1 – Government’s Affiliates
Hearing Date: March 5, 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 provides 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 fourteen Accused — both Assad regime and Government affiliates — appeared before the Court, the Accused were severed into two groups based on their affiliations, seven in each group. Therefore, the Syria Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC) decided to separate the trial reports according to the Accused’s affiliations.]
SJAC’s 1st trial monitoring report details day 4 in the trial pertaining to the coastal incident, taking place in Aleppo, Syria. On this trial day, the Accused affiliated with the Government — along with witnesses — appeared before the Court. Defense Counsel submitted requests for their clients' release. Upon the Defense's request, the Court ordered a tripartite expert analysis of video footage attributed to the Accused.
Day 4 – March 5, 2026
[Note: The Syria Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC) was unable to attend the proceedings of the previous sessions against the government affiliates. SJAC will publish trial reports consecutively, commencing from this day.]
Syria Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC’s) trial monitor arrived at the courtroom to attend the session originally scheduled for 10:00 AM; however, the commencement of the proceedings was delayed until 12:00 PM.
Press attendance was sparse. Despite the proceedings being open to the public, there were few attendees present. Among the audience were several family members of the Accused and a monitor from a Beirut-based human rights organization known as “The Legal Agenda.”
At 11:43 AM, the Accused began entering the courtroom, escorted by members of the Military Police, and were subsequently placed in the dock.
***
The First Case
The Accused, Basel A., was called to appear, accompanied by his Defense Counsel, C3 [redacted name]. The Defense requested to hear its witnesses, to which the representative of the Public Prosecution had no objection. The Defense witnesses were called; the first witness entered while the other remained outside the courtroom in accordance with proper legal procedures.
Witness W1, [redacted name], appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. He testified that he works within the same faction to which the Accused belongs. Upon questioning by the Judge, the witness corrected himself, noting that he belongs to the 54th Division, whereas the Accused, Basel A., belongs to the 52nd Division. W1 noted they worked on a joint military operations axis during the coastal incidents, yet he did not witness the Accused committing the killing of any person. The witness added that the military operations axis began at the village of Al-Mukhtariyya المختارية, however, he did not know its terminus. The distance between the witness and the others [i.e. between him and the Accused] was approximately 75 to 100 meters. The witness recalled the occurrence of clashes with certain insurgents within the buildings, reiterating that he did not see the Accused commit any act of killing.
In response to a question from the representative of the Public Prosecution, the witness said that the Accused did not exhibit any disease symptoms. When cross-examined by the Defense Counsel for the Accused, the witness stated that the Accused suffered from an old injury sustained during the battles of Aleppo, specifically a shrapnel wound to the head that caused him tension and nervousness conditions.
The Accused declared his acceptance of the witness’s testimony.
The witness recalled that the alleged incident [the clash] took place on the third day from the start of the events.
The second witness, W2, [redacted name], appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. In response to the Judge’s questioning, he said that he knew the Accused as they were from the same village. The witness testified that he accompanied the Accused in the 52nd Division and that they participated in the fighting during the coastal incidents in a certain village, moving as a group within the combat axes. W2 affirmed that he did not witness the Accused commit the killing of any person, whether civilian or military. The witness did not recall the specific day the clash occurred, rather that it took place during the early days of the coastal incidents.
Upon questioning by the representative of the Public Prosecution, the witness replied that he knew the Accused to be in good health; he had heard the Accused was involved in a traffic accident a long time ago; and he had not noticed any neurological symptoms on him.
The Accused declared his acceptance of the witness’s testimony.
When asked by the Court whether he accepted the expert analysis conducted on the video clip attributed to him, the Accused objected to it and moved for a new expert analysis to be conducted on the footage. The representative of the Public Prosecution commented that he adhered to the findings of the technical expert analysis and requested a stay until after the Court’s decision regarding a tripartite expert committee will have been taken. Consequently, the Court decided to refer the case file for review until the session scheduled for Sunday, March 29, 2026.
The Second Case
The Accused, Captain Mustafa S., Khaled M., Aburra’ouf A., and Ammar A., were summoned and escorted into the courtroom by their Counsel. C1, [redacted name], Defense Counsel for one of the Accused, submitted a request for the release of his client. Defense Counsel C3 [redacted name] presented a request to drop the personal rights of the injured party, P1 [redacted name], against the Accused Mahmoud S. The Court noted that the medical report for P1 indicated a recovery period of five months and a disruption of work for three weeks. The Court also referred to the questioning transcript of P1, in his capacity as a Prosecution Witness before the Military Investigative Judge.
The witnesses W3 [redacted name], W4 [redacted name], W5 [redacted name], W6 [redacted name], and W7 [redacted name] were summoned.
The Prosecution Witness, W3 [redacted name], appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. In response to the Court’s questioning, the witness stated that he reiterated his statements made before the Investigative Judge, affirming there was no kinship or prior enmity between him and the Accused. When asked about the video clips, W3 replied that he worked with the Accused Captain Mustafa S., and that there was a raid on the village of Al-Mukhtariyya during which fatalities occurred; however, he did not know their number or whether they were civilians or military personnel. He noted that their entry into the village was a second raid, and at that point, they saw corpses. The witness added that Captain Ammar A. and Khaled M. did not participate in the clashes and did not kill anyone. He testified having witnessed the Accused Ammar A. striking some military prisoners with a stick, though he did not use his firearm at the time. W3 pointed out that the Accused Ammar A. worked as a personnel carrier driver who delivered a first batch to the village, then [returned] and accompanied the witness's group to the village in a second batch.
The Accused declared their acceptance of the testimony of witness W3.
Witness W4 [redacted name] appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. In response to the Court’s questioning, he explained that he knew the Accused, Captain Ammar A. and Khaled M., because he worked with them in the same faction during the coastal incidents. The witness testified that he participated in the raid and clashes in the village of Al-Mukhtariyya; however, he did not see the two Accused commit the killing of any person, civilian or military. Rather, he saw casualties from both sides during the first deployment. In response to a question from the Defense Counsel, the witness said that the clash was ongoing during the second deployment, and he saw the Accused Ammar A. striking several individuals with a stick, noting that he [the Accused] was a driver rather than a combatant.
The Accused declared their acceptance of the testimony of witness W4.
Witness W5 [redacted name] appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. In response to the Court’s questioning, he acknowledged that his testimony had been read before the Investigative Judge. W5 testified that he joined the 54th Division, where the Accused Captain Ammar A. and Khaled M. work, and that he reiterated his statements made before the Military Investigative Judge. In response to a question by the Defense Counsel, the witness testified that he did not see any of the Accused commit any act of killing against any civilian or prisoner from the opposing side.
The Accused declared their acceptance of the testimony of witness W5.
Subsequently, the statements of witness W5 given before the Investigative Judge were read in court.
Witness W6 [redacted name] appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. The witness stated that he was a member of the faction in which the Accused Captain Ammar A. and Khaled M. work, affirming that he had nothing to add to the statement he provided to the Investigative Judge.
The Accused declared their acceptance of the testimony of witness W6.
Witness W7 [redacted name] appeared before the Court and took the legal oath. His statements made before the Investigative Judge were read, which he reiterated. W7 testified that he knew the Accused because they were in the same faction that participated in the coastal incidents, confirming the content of his previous statement.
The Judge asked the Accused if they had reviewed the expert analysis of the video clip and inquired whether there were any objections to its content. The Accused Ammar A., Mohammad B., and Mohammad Z. accepted the technical expert analysis conducted by the Military Investigative Judge through an expert, which had been transcribed into text and added to the file. They acknowledged the contents of the clips, except for Mohammad B., who did not admit to them or to what was attributed to him in the footage. The representative of the Public Prosecution demanded the technical expertise reports be adopted, particularly regarding the Accused Mohammad B. However, the Defense Counsel for the Accused moved for a tripartite expert analysis of the clip attributed to his client, Mohammad B., and expressed willingness to pay the required fee.
Defense Counsel C1 [redacted name] requested severing the trial into multiple files given that each act is distinct from those attributed to the Accused, and he moved for a ruling on the release of his client.
Defense Counsel C4 [redacted name] presented a defense memorandum on behalf of the Accused Mahmoud S., which was read and added to the file.
Defense Counsel C3 [redacted name] moved for the release of his client, either rightfully or on bail, and expressed willingness to pay the fee for the expert analysis.
The Court decided to conduct an expert analysis on the video clip attributed to the Accused, Mohammad B., by three experts. The party requesting the analysis was ordered to pay a fee of 4,500 new Syrian Pounds. Naming the experts was deferred until after the fee payment. The session was then adjourned.
The proceedings were adjourned at 2:00PM.
The next trial day will be on March 29, 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