Inside the Trial of the As-Sweida Incidents #1: An Opportunity to Uncover Extensive Details
TRIAL OF AS-SWEIDA INCIDENTS
The Military Criminal Court – Damascus, Syria
Trial Monitoring Summary #1
Hearing Date: July 13, 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 1st trial monitoring report details day 2 of the trial in Damascus, Syria pertaining to the incidents in As-Sweida . On this trial day, four Accused appeared before the Court. In response to the evidence presented by the Prosecutor during the previous session, the Defense Counsel argued for the innocence of his client and requested an extension of time to produce defense witnesses from As-Sweida. The second Accused admitted that he appeared in a video clip showing individuals firing at other people, but denied that he participated in the shooting. The charge against one of the Accused was unlawful deprivation of liberty and torture.
Day 2 – July 13, 2026
[Note: The Syria Justice and Accountability Centre was unable to attend the first session.]
[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. (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.
The Presiding Judge indicated that during the previous session, all case files were read out and the Prosecution had requested an extension of time to present certain evidence, namely:
- A video clip published on social media platforms in which the Accused appears.
- The Accused pleaded that his actions were a reaction to the killing of some of his friends during the events in As-Sweida.
- Screenshots of several of his social media posts demonstrating that they were entirely racist and sectarian in nature.
At this point, the Accused affirmed that he is civilian, not military. The Presiding Judge interrupted him to clarify the charges attributed to him: intentional murder and incitement of sectarian strife.
Regarding the evidence presented by the Prosecution, a photograph showing him carrying a weapon, the Accused claimed the photo was old and taken a month before the incidents in As-Sweida, adding that he was unsure whether the post belonged to him.
Defense Counsel C1 submitted a memorandum to the Presiding Judge, stating that the incidents in As-Sweida are divided into two phases: First Phase, July 12–14, [2025] and the Second Phase July 14–16, [2025]. The army and armed forces intervened, and clashes broke out between them and armed groups [in As-Sweida]. The Counsel noted that his client was not in As-Sweida during this phase, as he had traveled with his parents to an area south of As-Sweida. The army subsequently withdrew from As-Sweida on July 17, [2025].
[The Presiding Judge interrupted the Defense Counsel due to his lengthy explanations.]
C1 stated that the Accused returned to As-Sweida to assist his friends, as he was a volunteer at the National Hospital, noting that there were no army forces [in As-Sweida]. He asserted that his client did not fire a single bullet, that there is no indication he carried a weapon, and that no evidence proves he uttered any words against the army or security forces.
[At this point, the video clip was replayed to verify that the Accused did not utter any words against the army and that the deceased was not a member of the army forces.]
The Prosecutor noted that a corpse appears in the video clip, that the Accused admitted to being the individual appearing in the video, and that the time element is immaterial [in this specific crime].
The Accused testified that the video was filmed on July 17, [2026,] in As-Sweida.
Counsel C1 requested sufficient time to bring witnesses from As-Sweida Governorate to testify, reserving the right to respond to the evidence presented by the Prosecution.
The Court decided to grant the Defense Counsel an extension of time to produce all his witnesses at once and present his defense arguments regarding the documents submitted by the Prosecution. The session was adjourned to July 27, 2026.
The Second 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. There is no personal civil claim brought against the Accused.
The Presiding Judge indicated that during the previous session, all case files were read out and that the Accused had requested an extension of time to retain legal counsel.
The Prosecutor reiterated his previous demand to convict the Accused in accordance with the indictment issued by the Investigating Judge.
[Subsequently, a video clip published on social media platforms was displayed, which the Prosecution alleges shows the Accused attempting to murder a number of individuals. The video showed bound individuals who appeared to be civilians, after which armed individuals shot them. The Accused appeared armed in the video.]
The Accused reiterated his statements provided during the previous session, adding that while he was among those who appeared in the video clip, he did not participate in firing at the individuals who were killed. According to the Accused, he merely fired a few rounds at the ground as a reaction, because he was unaware of the source of incoming gunfire.
Defense Counsel C2 requested an extension of time to present his defense arguments.
Following deliberations, the Court decided to grant the Defense Counsel an extension of time to submit his defense arguments. The session was adjourned to July 27, 2026.
The Third 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. There is no personal civil claim brought against the Accused.
The Presiding Judge indicated that all case files were read out during the previous session. The Presiding Judge indicated that all case files were read during the previous session. The charges comprised deprivation of liberty alongside physical and psychological torture.
The Prosecutor read his statements, asserting that the Accused breached the mandate assigned to him to maintain security and protect civilians. He submitted a one-page legal review and read it before the Court. [Note: A legal review is a formal submission by the Public Prosecution articulating its legal reasoning regarding the case and concluding with specific recommendations for judicial action.]
The Accused reiterated his statements provided during the judicial interrogation.
Defense Counsel C2 asked his client, the Accused, whether the individual whose mustache was plucked in the video clip was bound at the hands or feet. The Accused responded that the person was not bound, noting he had merely asked him to dismount from his bicycle.
Defense Counsel requested an extension of time to present his defense arguments.
Following deliberations, the Court decided to grant the Defense Counsel an extension of time to submit his defense arguments. The session was adjourned to July 27, 2026.
The Fourth 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.
The Plaintiff’s Counsel reserved the right to present documents and defense pleadings following the hearing of the Prosecution witnesses.
The Prosecutor requested time until the next session to produce Prosecution witnesses.
The Accused reiterated his previous judicial statements.
Following deliberations, the Court decided to grant the Defense Counsel an extension of time to produce Prosecution witnesses. The session was adjourned to July 27, 2026.
The proceedings were adjourned at 12:11PM.
The next trial day will be on July 27, 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