Inside the Trial of The As-Sweida Incidents #3: The First Judgment in the Trial
TRIAL OF THE AS-SWEIDA INCIDENTS
The Military Criminal Court – Damascus, Syria
Trial Monitoring Summary #3
Hearing Date: September 7, 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 3rd trial monitoring report details day 4 of the trial pertaining to As-Sweida Incidents in Damascus, Syria. On this trial day, six Accused appeared before the Court, as two other Accused joined the trial. Several Defense Counsel requested expert technical analysis on video clips, and the Public Prosecution requested to hear witnesses on its behalf.
Subsequently, the Court issued its first judgment in one of the cases considered in this trial, sentencing one of the Accused to two years' imprisonment along with a fine, after convicting him of committing acts that resulted in inciting sectarian strife and promoting conflict among different sects.
Day 4 – September 7, 2026
The session began at 11:00AM.
The First Case:
Case No. 226 of 2026. The Accused, Amr A., was brought in custody and appeared unhandcuffed. Counsel C1 [redacted name] appeared as counsel for the Accused.
The Public Prosecution reiterated its previous statements regarding the incrimination of the Accused.
The Defense Counsel reiterated his previous statements, expressing his willingness to pay an advance fee for f the technical expert analysis, and presented a flash drive containing the original video clip showing his client during the incidents of Sweida, requesting that an expert analysis be conducted on it in order to determine when the clip was recorded. Subsequently, the Defense Counsel submitted a four-page defense memorandum, which was added to the case file.
The Court decided to proceed with conducting the technical expert analysis and instructed the Defense Counsel to pay an advance sum for conducting the technical expert analysis, provided that this analysis is conducted during the adjournment period. The session was then adjourned to September 21, 2026.
The Second Case:
Case No. 249 of 2026. The Accused Ezzeddein I. was brought in custody and appeared unhandcuffed. Defense Counsel C3, [redacted name], attended, representing the Accused. Two Plaintiffs’ Counsel, C4 [redacted name] and [redacted name] C5, were present.
The in-person trial commenced publicly.
The Prosecutor reiterated his previous requests for the incrimination of the Accused in accordance with the indictment decision.
Plaintiff Counsel C4, [redacted name], submitted a five-page written claim statement, attaching a certified copy of the Criminal Security report and a certified copy of the witness examination and interrogation record. All documents were added to the case file.
C5, [redacted name], submitted a six-page written claim statement, which was added to the case file.
The Accused reiterated his previous judicial statements.
The Defense Counsel submitted a six-page written defense statement, attaching a CD and pictures printed from social media for the [Tunil] Sweida Media Center page. He requested that the Court review them as they contradict the statements of the Plaintiffs’ party. The Counsel requested to hear a number of witnesses regarding the facts mentioned in the report. Additionally, he requested that an expert conduct an analysis on his client to determine his medical and psychological condition.
After consultation, the Court decided to instruct the Defense Counsel to bring his named witnesses listed in his written statement to hear their testimony regarding the facts, as well as to conduct a medical analysis on the Accused by specialists to determine his psychological and neurological condition, in addition to instructing the Defense Counsel to pay an advance sum provided that the expert analysis is conducted during the adjournment period in the presence of all Parties, and that the experts be named after due payment of the advance fee. The session was then adjourned to September 21, 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, representing the Accused.
The Judge noted that all case files were read out [note: the files were not read out during the session.]
The Prosecutor reiterated the incrimination of the Accused in accordance with the indictment decision as prescribed by law.
The Accused reiterated his previous statements.
The Defense Counsel reiterated his previous request regarding conducting the technical expert analysis and his willingness to pay the advance sum as prescribed by law.
The Court decided to instruct the Defense Counsel to pay an advance sum to conduct the expert analysis on the digital evidence, provided that it is conducted during the adjournment period as prescribed by law. The session was then adjourned to September 21, 2026.
The Fourth Case:
Case No. 274 of 2026. The Accused Firas A. was brought in custody and appeared unhandcuffed. Defense Counsel C6, [redacted name], attended, representing the Accused.
The in-person trial commenced publicly.
The Prosecutor submitted a written request seeking to bring the Complainant and hear his testimony confidentially in order to protect him from harm, provided that appropriate witness protection measures are taken.
The Accused reiterated his judicial statements made during the administrative interrogation with the Investigating Judge.
Counsel for the Accused submitted a three-page written defense memorandum, which was added to the case file.
The Court decided to grant the request of the Prosecution and summon the Complainant after the Prosecution provides his detailed identity confidentially. The witness testimony shall be heard after verifying his identity, and his face shall not be revealed during the next public session, in accordance with witness protection procedures. The session was then adjourned to September 21, 2026.
The Fifth Case:
The Accused Rabi’ H. was brought in custody and appeared unhandcuffed. Defense Counsel C7, [redacted name], attended with him.
The in-person trial commenced publicly.
The Prosecutor submitted a written request, which was added to the case file, seeking to summon the Prosecution witnesses who were heard before the Investigating Judge, and to summon the witness O1, [redacted name], to hear his testimony.
The Accused reiterated his judicial statements made during the administrative interrogation with the Investigating Judge.
Counsel for the Accused requested a continuance until all the witnesses had been heard before submitting his defense in the event the request of the Prosecutor is granted.
The Court decided to grant the request of the Prosecution and summon its witnesses, while reserving the right of the Defense Counsel to respond after hearing the witnesses. The session was then adjourned to September 21, 2026.
The Sixth 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, representing the Accused.
The in-person trial commenced publicly.
After reviewing the case documents and the evidence contained therein, and upon establishing that the Accused committed the offense, the Court unanimously, and in the name of the Syrian Arab People, decided as follows:
- Convicting the Accused , military personnel Al-Mo’tasem Billah H., of the offense of committing acts that resulted in inciting sectarian strife and promoting conflict among the different sects of the Syrian nation, and sentencing him to two years' imprisonment, payment of a fine, and counting the duration of his pre-trial detention as part of the sentence served.
- Barring him from exercising the rights specified in Sections 2 and 4 of Articles 5 and 6 of the Syrian General Penal Code.
- Charging him with fees and expenses.
- Submitting the decision to the Public Prosecutor for review as prescribed by law.
A judgment rendered in person, subject to appeal before the Court of Cassation.
The proceedings were adjourned at 12:45PM.
The next trial day will be on September 21, 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