Inside the Coastal Incidents Trial – Government’s Affiliates #5: Not a Killer, Just a Driver

TRIAL OF THE COASTAL INCIDENTS

Military Criminal Court – Aleppo, Syria

Trial Monitoring Summary #5 – Government’s Affiliates

Hearing Date: July 16, 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 Accused — both Assad and Government 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 9 in the trial of the government’s affiliates pertaining to the coastal incident, taking place in Aleppo, Syria. On this trial day, several Accused appeared before the Court. Two Accused were interrogated regarding a video recording showing a shooting and deceased individuals. One of them denied filming the clip, while the other one claimed that his task was limited to driving a vehicle to transport reinforcements and that he did not participate in the fighting.

Day 9 – July 16, 2026 

The trial proceedings began at 10:14AM.

The First Case

The Accused, Captain Mustafa S., Ammar A., Mohammad Z., Khaled M., and Mahmoud S., Aburra’ouf A., and Abdurrahman B. were called. Their Defense Counsel appeared with them.

The Court decided to interrogate the Accused Mohammad B. and Khaled M. regarding the shooting and their connection to the individuals killed during filming.

The Judge noted that it was mentioned in the statements of Accused Mohammad B. that he was shooting and filming with his mobile phone. The Judge wanted to know how this incident occurred. The Accused Mohammad B. answered that there was no truth to the statements regarding filming himself riding a motorcycle and committing the murder of a person, nor that he published the video clip on social media. Then the Accused requested an acquittal.

In response to the Court's question, Accused Khaled M. answered that he was working in the same group in which [the Accused] Ammar A. was working, and that he did not participate in the clashes; rather, their mission was to break the siege on the security forces, their colleagues, in the village of Al-Mukhtariyya, which they accomplished. Khaled M. added that he did not know who killed the individuals whose bodies appeared in the video clip which circulated on social media. After that, the Accused repeated his previous statements and requested an acquittal.

In response to the Court's question, Accused Ammar A. answered that he did not commit the murder of any person, and that his task in the group in which he worked was driving an armored vehicle transporting soldiers and reinforcements. He recounted that on the date of the incident that appeared in the video clip, he delivered reinforcements to his besieged colleagues in the village of Al-Mukhtariyya in the armored vehicle in order to break the siege, and that he did not participate in the fighting because his task was limited to driving the armored vehicle. Regarding his striking of certain individuals with a stick, the Accused continued, it was a reaction to the martyrdom of a number of his colleagues in the same location. He added that he did not know who killed the individuals who appeared in the picture and the video clip. After that, the Accused repeated his previous statements and requested an acquittal.

The Defense Counsels repeated their previous statements and requested leniency.

The Court decided to adjourn the session for review to September 17, 2026.

The Second Case

The Accused, Basel M., was called. His Defense Counsel appeared with him.

When asked if he had any other statements, the Accused denied and requested acquittal and leniency.

The Court decided to adjourn the session for review to September 17, 2026.

The proceedings were adjourned at 11:00AM.

The next trial day will be on September 17, 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