Inside the Trial of the As-Sweida Incidents #5: Request Denied
TRIAL OF THE AS-SWEIDA INCIDENTS
The Military Criminal Court – Damascus, Syria
Trial Monitoring Summary #5
Hearing Date: October 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.]
SJAC’s 5th trial monitoring report details day 6 of the trial in Damascus, Syria pertaining to the As-Sweida Incidents. On this trial day, ten Accused appeared before the Court. A witness testified that two individuals informed him that one of the Accused burned houses where the witness's children resided. The witness promised to search for these two individuals so they may appear before the Court. Defense Counsel for some of the Accused requested that expert analysis on video clips be reconducted, but the Court denied their requests. The Court likewise denied the request of Defense Counsel for one of the Accused to produce the officer and security personnel who were stationed at a checkpoint and permitted the victims to enter the olive groves.
Day 5 – October 5, 2026
The session commenced at 10:30AM. The Court examined the cases listed as follows:
The First Case:
Case No. 274 of 2026. The Accused Firas A. was brought in custody and appeared unhandcuffed. Defense Counsel C9, [redacted name], a trainee at the office of Defense Counsel C6, [redacted name], attended, representing the Accused.
The in-person trial commenced publicly.
The Prosecutor stated that the Anonymous Witness whom the Prosecution had undertaken to produce during today's hearing is Plaintiff P3, [redacted name], as P3 refused to serve as an anonymous witness and preferred his appearance to be public.
P3, [redacted name]
P3 testified that following the incidents in As-Sweida, and after several houses of individuals who were supportive of the government were tracked down and burned, he was informed by, O2 [redacted name] and O3 [redacted name] that the Accused had contacted them when he fled to Lebanon, as he was a friend of theirs. The Accused informed them that he, along with others, had burned several houses belonging to P3, in which P3's children resided. Upon hearing this information, P3 went to the National Investigation Committee in As-Sweida and informed them of the matter. P3 added that he did not know the whereabouts of O2 and O3, but he would undertake to search for them so they could appear before the Court and deliver their testimonies to verify the truth of his claim.
Furthermore, P3 joined as a Plaintiff against Accused Firas A. in the event the charges against him are proven, in order to claim all damages.
The Accused reiterated his previous judicial statements and added that he bears full responsibility if P3 produces the two named witnesses and they testify in accordance with what P3 testified before the Court.
Defense Counsel C9 reiterated the previous defenses and requested the acquittal of the client from the charged offense.
Upon consultation, the Court decided to order P3’s Defense Counsel to be granted an extension of time to produce the witnesses mentioned in his judicial statements, and subsequently adjourned the session to October 19, 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, representing the Accused.
The in-person trial commenced publicly.
The Prosecutor reiterated his previous demands and requested the conviction of the Accused in accordance with the decision issued by the Investigative Judge.
The Accused reiterated his previous statements.
The Defense Counsel submitted a three-page written defense brief, objecting to the unilateral expert analysis and arguing that there is a vast difference between the physical appearance of his client and the image shown in the video recording presented in the case as evidence against his client. He requested a three-member expert analysis and sought the acquittal of his client, or otherwise, granting him mitigating circumstances in the event of a conviction.
Upon consultation, the Court decided to deny the request of the Defense Counsel regarding the three-member expert analysis and submit the case for review, and subsequently adjourned the session to October 19, 2026.
The Third Case:
Case No. 171 of 2026. The Accused Mohammad ., Mohammad S., Mohammad H., Mohammad K., and Mustafa S. were brought forward. There were no Plaintiffs. Defense Counsel C2 [redacted name] appeared as an ad hoc court-appointed Counsel for the Accused Mohammad M. and Mustafa S., and as retained Counsel for the remaining Accused.
The Defense Counsel submitted a three-page written defense brief, attaching three photographs taken from social media platforms of the deceased, which confirm that he was a combatant and not part of the medical staff. The Defense Counsel requested a technical expert analysis of the video recording to clarify the role of each Accused in the act of killing. He sought acquittal for the Accused, or otherwise leniency and mercy in the event of their conviction.
Upon consultation, the Court decided to deny the request of Defense Counsel for a technical expert analysis, as it is non-beneficial in light of the presented evidence, and submitted the case for review, and subsequently adjourned the session to October 19, 2026.
The Fourth 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 Defense Counsel submitted a two-page written defense brief, which included his objection to the unilateral expert analysis that was conducted because it did not determine the recording date of the video clip submitted by Defense Counsel in previous hearings. Rather, the expert analysis was performed on the video clip submitted by the Prosecutor, which was retrieved from social media.
Following consultation, the Court decided to deny the request of Defense Counsel to conduct a three-member expert analysis, as it serves no purpose under due process.
The Accused reiterated his previous statements.
The Defense Counsel reserved his right to submit a memorandum during the review period.
Upon consultation, the Court decided to submit the case for review, and subsequently adjourned the session to October 19, 2026.
The Fifth Case:
Case No. 394 of 2026. The Accused Rabi’ H. was brought in custody and appeared unhandcuffed. Counsel C7 [redacted name] appeared as Counsel for the Accused. There were no Plaintiffs
The in-person trial commenced publicly.
The Prosecutor requested the conviction of the Accused in accordance with the indictment issued by the Military Investigative Judge and demanded the imposition of the maximum penalties against the Accused.
The Accused reiterated his previous judicial statements.
Defense Counsel for the Accused submitted a three-page written defense brief, seeking the acquittal of his client, or otherwise granting him mitigating circumstances in the event of a conviction.
Upon consultation, the Court decided to submit the case for review, and subsequently adjourned the session to October 19, 2026.
The sixth 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. Plaintiffs’ Counsel, [redacted name] P5, attended, representing the Plaintiffs P1 [redacted name] and P2 [redacted name]. Plaintiffs’ Counsel C4 [redacted name] did not attend on behalf of the rest of the Plaintiffs.
The in-person trial commenced publicly and as though the parties were present.
The Prosecutor reaffirmed his previous statements requesting the conviction of the Accused in accordance with the indictment and the imposition of the maximum penalties against him.
The Accused reiterated his previous judicial statements.
The Defense Counsel requested the summoning of the personnel from the checkpoint who had granted approval for the victims to enter and harvest olives, and sought to produce his witnesses listed in the written brief.
Upon consultation, the Court decided to grant the Defense Counsel a final extension to produce the witnesses named in his previous memorandum, denied his request to summon the officer and personnel who were stationed at the checkpoint, as it serves no purpose in the case, and subsequently adjourned the session to October 19, 2026.
The proceedings were adjourned at 12:30PM.
The next trial day will be on October 19, 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