Inside the Trial of As-Sweida Incidents #2: Inculpatory and Exculpatory Witnesses
TRIAL OF AS-SWEIDA INCIDENTS
The Military Criminal Court – Damascus, Syria
Trial Monitoring Summary #2
Hearing Date: July 27, 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.]
SJAC’s 2nd trial monitoring report details day 3 of the trial in Damascus, Syria pertaining to the incidents in As-Sweida . On this trial day, four Accused and five witnesses appeared before the Court. One witness testified that he was harvesting olives alongside others when gunfire was directed at them, resulting in fatalities among his group while he managed to survive. The Accused claimed that the witness and those with him possessed weapons, but the witness denied this assertion.
Other witnesses testified that they had never seen one of the Accused armed and confirmed that the said Accused was not present in As-Sweida during the incidents that occurred there. Additionally, a Defense Counsel requested a technical expert analysis on a video clip featuring his client, specifying that the evaluation be conducted by a qualified expert registered on the Syrian Ministry of Justice's official roster of experts.
Day 2 – July 27, 2026
[Media coverage was restricted to media outlets affiliated with the Ministry of Justice.]
The session began at 11:00AM.
The in-person trial proceedings commenced publicly.
The First Case:
Case No. (249) of 2026. The Accused Ezzeddein I. was brought in custody and appeared unhandcuffed. Defense Counsel C3, [redacted name], attended as legal counsel representing the Accused. Two Plaintiffs’ Counsel, P4 [redacted name] and [redacted name] P5, were present.
Witness Testimony:
Witness W1, [redacted name], was called and appeared before the Court. Asked by the Presiding Judge if he recognized the Accused, the witness confirmed W1 was asked to point to the Accused, which he did.
W1 testified that on the date of the incident, February 7, 2026, he set out early in the morning with nine individuals, including his relatives, to harvest olives. Upon passing a checkpoint, they obtained permission to proceed after [checkpoint personnel] inspected their identity cards. They proceeded to the olive grove and began harvesting. At approximately 4:30PM, the Accused - identified in court by the witness - arrived wearing military clothes and carrying a military rifle. The Accused initially did not approach them and turned back, only to return a few minutes later. Before reaching their work location, the Accused set his rifle aside, approached the group, and inquired about their activity. They responded that they were workers harvesting olives and had cleared entry with the nearby checkpoint. The Accused then retrieved his weapon and started shooting at the direction of the group, where W1 alongside the “murdered” [redacted names], and others. As firing commenced, W1 fled into the interior of the grove unharmed. [Redacted name] attempted to follow after being injured, but the Accused pursued him and finished him off by shooting once again. W1 emphasized that they [the workers] were unarmed and unaware of why the Accused was shooting at them.
The Plaintiff’s Counsel asked whether the Accused fired directly at W1. The witness confirmed, adding that he managed to escape.
The Prosecutor inquired whether the Accused asked for a password granting presence in the area. W1responded that the Accused never asked them such a question.
The Defense Counsel asked whether the locus was an olive grove or merely a house yard. W1 clarified they were harvesting olives in front of [redacted name]'s home, adding that surveillance camera [footage] corroborated his account.
The Defense Counsel wanted to know the make of the “murdered’s” vehicle. W1 replied that he could not recall the exact make, noting that it was a small pickup truck and estimated it was parked roughly ninety meters away.
The Defense Counsel wondered about the reason for the delay in logging W1's statement. The Presiding Judge interjected, noting that procedural logging timelines pertain to the competent authorities organizing the official record.
In response to the Court’s questioning, the Accused reiterated his previous statements, rejecting the witness's testimony. He asserted that they [i.e. the olive harvesters] possessed weapons inside the pickup truck, that he had asked them for the password which they failed to provide, and that he did not know the exact quantity of weapons in their possession.
The Prosecutor reiterated the demand to convict the Accused in accordance with the indictment issued by the Investigating Judge.
The Civil Prosecution requested an extension of time to submit a written claim memorandum regarding the Accused's statements.
The Defense Counsel requested an extension of time to present a defense memorandum.
Following deliberations, the Court decided to grant all parties a final continuance to submit their defense and adjourned the proceedings to September 7, 2026.
The Second Case:
Case No. (226) of 2026. The Accused Amr A. was brought in custody and appeared unhandcuffed. Defense Counsel C1, [redacted name], attended as legal counsel representing the Accused.
All case files were read out.
The Prosecutor requested the conviction of the Accused in accordance with the indictment issued by the Military Investigating Judge.
Witness Testimony:
Witness W2 [redacted name] [family name unheard by trial monitor] was called and appeared before the Court.
W2 Testified that she is a friend of the Accused's family. On the morning of July 15, 2025, amidst the clashes in As-Sweida, she and her family went to the Accused's family residence, after which both families relocated together to their village. She asserted that the Accused was with his family at the time. They [i.e. members of the two families] stayed during Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, returning toward As-Sweida around noon [on Thursday]. The Accused did not leave his family's home during that timeframe. W2 expressed no knowledge regarding the photograph showing the Accused holding a military rifle with a corpse behind him.
The Defense Counsel wanted to know whether armed clashes were taking place and whether the Syrian Army was there upon their return home [in As-Sweida] on Thursday. W2 answered that the Syrian Army had withdrawn, and no signs of armed activities nor clashes were observed.
Witness W3 [redacted name] [family name unheard by trial monitor] was called and appeared before the Court.
W3 testified that she is a neighbor of the Accused and knows him. She recalled that on July 15, 2025, she was with the Accused’s family in [redacted location] village - so was the Accused - for two days before returning on Thursday. As a journalist, W3 went to the National Hospital where she encountered the Accused by chance, adding that he was a volunteer with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent. W3 asked him when they [i.e. he and his family] arrived in the town, and he informed her they had arrived the same afternoon. She noted she never saw him carrying a weapon.
When questioned about the picture showing the Accused and the words he uttered addressing the corpse behind him, W3 replied she believed this was an outburst of anger and emotions triggered by the killing of the people of As-Sweida Governorate. She added that factions in control at the time were offering weapons to anyone for self-defense, including herself, which she declined. W3 said that upon their [her and her family’s] return on Thursday, the Syrian Army had [already] withdrawn, noting that there were no signs of military activities.
The Defense Counsel wanted to know whether W3 saw corpses while heading to the hospital. W3 responded that she saw some corpses and bloodstains of corpses that had already been relocated.
Witness W4 [redacted name] [family name unheard by trial monitor] was called and appeared before the Court.
W4 testified he knows the Accused as he is a friend of the Accused's father. On July 15, 2025, W4 and his family went to the Accused family’s house and told them that they wanted to flee due to the intense armed clashes. Consequently, they went to [redacted location] village and arrived there at 11:00AM, where the Accused's family joined them two hours later. They stayed in the same house for three days (sic;) Tuesday and Wednesday, returning Thursday morning to As-Sweida following the withdrawal of the Syrian Army and cessation of hostilities. Upon their return, W4 added, they observed numerous corpses in the streets. W4 noted that the Accused volunteered, along with others, to transport corpses to the hospital. W4 affirmed he never saw weapons with the Accused or his father, a schoolteacher, when they were at [redacted location] village. W4 also did not know why the picture, showing the Accused holding a weapon next to a corpse, was taken.
Witness W5 [redacted name] [family name unheard by trial monitor] was called and appeared before the Court.
W5 testified that he knows the Accused as they are neighbors in [redacted location] village. W5 recalled that on July 15, 2025, the Accused along with his family arrived in the village, where W5 saw him. They stayed there on July 16-17, 2025. On July 17, 2025, W5 continued, he witnessed the Accused departing for As-Sweida on a motorcycle at approximately 7:20 AM. W5 affirmed he had never seen the Accused carry a weapon and that the Accused’s [family] had no weapons in their house.
Noting that W5’s and the Accused’s houses were next to each other, the Prosecutor wanted to know whether the Accused left the house on July 15 or 16, [2025.] W5 denied having ever seen the Accused leaving house.
The Accused reiterated his previous judicial statements and accepted all witness testimonies.
The Prosecutor reiterated the demand to convict the Accused.
The Defense Counsel requested an extension of time to present his defense addressing the witnesses' testimonies and to submit additional defenses revealing the truth.
The Court unanimously granted Defense Counsel a final extension of time to submit his defense and adjourned the proceedings to September 7, 2026.
The Third Case:
Case No. (291) of 2026. The Accused Abdunnoor Q. was brought in custody and appeared unhandcuffed. Defense Counsel C2, [redacted name], attended as legal counsel representing the Accused.
All case files were read out.
The Prosecutor reaffirmed the demand to convict the Accused.
The Accused reiterated his previous judicial statements.
The Defense Counsel submitted a two-page written defense memorandum requesting a technical expert analysis on the video clip featuring his client. Counsel specified that the examination should be conducted by a qualified digital evidence expert registered in the Syrian Ministry of Justice's roster of accredited experts, with the expert analysis to take place during the adjournment period.
The Court decided to grant the request and adjourned the session to September 7, 2026.
The Fourth Case:
Case No. (306) of 2026. The Accused Al-Mo’tasem Billah H. was brought in custody and appeared unhandcuffed. Defense Counsel C2, [redacted name], attended as legal counsel representing the Accused.
All case files were read out.
The Prosecutor reiterated the previous demand to convict the Accused in accordance with the indictment issued by the Military Investigating Judge.
The Defense Counsel submitted a two-page written defense memorandum.
The Accused reiterated his previous judicial statements.
The Court unanimously decided to adjourn the session for review and set the next hearing date for September 7, 2026.
The proceedings were adjourned at 12:30PM.
The next trial day will be on September 7, 2026, at 10:00AM.
___________________________
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