Coastal Events

Report On the First Public Trial Session Concerning the Coastal Events

Arab Council Foundation

Arab Network Against Impunity

My Right Foundation

I. Executive Summary

On 18 November 2025, the first public trial session was convened at the Palace of Justice in Aleppo, involving 14 defendants accused of committing serious human rights violations during the “Coastal Events” of March 2025. This marks the first judicial proceeding among hundreds of suspects implicated in these events.

The defendants include:

• Seven individuals affiliated with the former regime, charged with attacking security forces of the transitional government and inciting violence in support of that regime. The presiding military investigative judge referred to them as “rebellious Syrian citizens.”
• Seven members of the Ministry of Defense and current security forces under the interim Syrian government, previously associated with armed factions, accused of extrajudicial killings of unarmed civilians and committing grave violations during operations in the coastal region.

The charges brought against the defendants include:
incitement to sedition and sectarian civil war, formation of armed groups, attacks against public authorities, intentional homicide, looting, destruction of property, as well as charges related to affiliation with the former regime and communication with officers of the Republican Guard.

The session lasted approximately two hours and included a formal reading of charges and preliminary judicial questioning of the defendants. The court adjourned detailed hearings to sessions scheduled for 18 and 25 December 2025.

While these proceedings constitute an important step toward accountability and transitional justice in Syria, they simultaneously raise serious concerns regarding compliance with international fair trial standards, the non-selectivity of accountability, and the existence of effective mechanisms for victim redress and reparations.

II. Methodology

This report is based on:

• Detailed media coverage and human rights monitoring of the first trial session.
• Reports addressing the background of the Coastal Events, the establishment of the National Investigation and Fact-Finding Committee, and data concerning victims and suspects.
• The Syrian Penal Code No. 148 of 1949 (as amended), used to analyze the legal basis of the charges.
• Relevant international legal instruments, including:
  • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 14),
  • General Comment No. 32 of the Human Rights Committee,
  • The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

All legal and human rights conclusions presented herein are derived from these sources, with a clear distinction between documented facts and analytical assessments.

III. Background of the Coastal Events / Massacres

1. Temporal and Geographic Context

The Syrian coastal events erupted in early March 2025, specifically on 6 March, and continued for several days to weeks. They affected multiple areas along the Syrian coast, including Latakia, Tartus, and their surrounding regions.

According to a government investigation later referred to the judiciary, the events resulted in the killing of at least 1,426 individuals, the majority of whom were civilians, particularly from the Alawite community, as well as members of public security forces. The violations included sectarian-motivated attacks, extrajudicial executions, arson, and widespread looting.

2. Perpetrators of Violations

Two principal parties were implicated in the violations:

1. Elements affiliated with the former regime (“rebels”)

• Accused of attacking security forces and military units affiliated with the transitional government.
• Allegedly sought to destabilize public order and undermine security in favor of the Assad regime, which collapsed in December 2024.

2. Members of the current security and military forces

(including Ministry of Defense and Interior personnel, as well as loosely controlled armed factions)

Some of these acts reportedly carried a retaliatory and sectarian character.

Accused of committing extrajudicial killings against unarmed civilians, as well as acts of looting, destruction of property, and collective punishment during “security restoration” operations in the coastal region.

The dual nature of these violations—committed both by remnants of the former regime and by actors within current state institutions—has positioned this trial as a critical test of the credibility and integrity of Syria’s transitional justice process.

IV. The National Investigation and Fact-Finding Committee

Following the escalation and scale of violations, the transitional government established an independent National Committee for Investigation and Fact-Finding into the Syrian Coastal Events by official decree.

1. Mandate of the Committee

• To investigate all violations committed during the events, regardless of the perpetrators.
• To document victims and categories of violations, including killings, torture, looting, arson, and forced displacement.
• To identify those responsible and refer case files to the national judiciary.

2. Preliminary Findings

• After several months of work, the Committee announced the referral of more than 500 suspects to the judiciary, with some reports indicating 563 individuals, based on the evidence and case files collected.
• The Committee’s report identified a pattern of sectarian killings targeting civilians, as well as retaliatory acts committed by both parties, while emphasizing the heightened responsibility of security and military personnel due to their positions of authority.

The Committee itself does not possess prosecutorial or adjudicative powers; rather, it refers cases to judicial authorities. Accordingly, the current public trials constitute a direct continuation of its investigative work.

V. Structure of the Judicial Case: Defendants and Charges

1. Classification of Defendants in the First Session

• 14 defendants appeared before the court in Aleppo.
• Seven defendants (“rebels”) allegedly initiated acts of violence. Among them are former military personnel under the Assad regime. They are charged with:
  • Incitement to sedition and sectarian civil war.
  • Attacks against security forces and military units of the transitional government.
  • Conspiracy in favor of the former regime.
• Seven additional defendants from the Ministry of Defense and current security forces are charged with:
  • Killing unarmed civilians during “security restoration” operations in the coastal region.
  • Participation in looting, pillaging, and arson of private property.
  • Exceeding lawful orders or executing manifestly unlawful orders.

2. Nature of the Charges

According to official and media sources, the principal charges include:

• Crimes of sedition and incitement to civil and sectarian conflict.
• Incitement to armed violence aimed at destabilizing civil peace.
• Formation or leadership of armed groups.
• Attacks against public authorities (security forces and the military).
• Intentional homicide of civilians and security personnel.
• Looting, pillage, and deliberate destruction of public and private property.
• Affiliation with the former regime and communication with officers of the Republican Guard (including an officer identified as Ahmad Saleh), within the framework of an alleged criminal conspiracy.

Under the Syrian Penal Code, these charges fall within the categories of:
crimes against internal state security, crimes against persons, and crimes against property (see Annex 1 for detailed legal classification).

VI. Detailed Account of the First Hearing

1. Scene Outside the Palace of Justice

On the morning of Tuesday, 18 November 2025, dozens of relatives of the defendants, along with some victims’ families, gathered outside the Palace of Justice in Aleppo. The scene was accompanied by local and international media coverage and a visible security presence.

• Several defendants arrived in white buses, handcuffed and escorted by public security forces. They disembarked with lowered heads and proceeded toward the courthouse, where judges, observers, journalists, and family members were awaiting the session.

For many families, this was the first time they had seen their detained relatives in months, adding a profound humanitarian dimension to the proceedings and raising hopes for truth and accountability.

2. Composition of the Court and Opening of the Session

The session was held in a medium-sized courtroom at the Aleppo Palace of Justice, presided over by Military Judge Zakaria Bakkar, with two associate judges.

• Judge Bakkar opened the session by emphasizing the neutrality and independence of the court, stating (as reported by Syria Ala Toul):
  “We have Syrian citizens accused of committing crimes. We do not have remnants [of the former regime], but rather suspects and rebels.”
• He further stressed that proceedings were conducted under the Syrian Penal Code and that the courtroom was open to media representatives and families, underscoring the principle of public hearings and a commitment—at least formally—to transparency.

The defendants were placed in a closed metal cage at the front of the courtroom—a practice common in several regional jurisdictions but widely criticized by human rights advocates as undermining the presumption of innocence and the dignity of the accused.

3. Reading of Charges and Structure of Interrogations

A. First Group: Defendants Linked to the Former Regime

Proceedings began with the interrogation of the seven defendants associated with the former regime, accused of acting in favor of the “defunct Assad regime.”

• The judge read out the charges individually, including participation in armed violence, incitement to civil and sectarian conflict, attacks against security forces, and coordination with Republican Guard officers.
• During the session, reference was made to an officer named Ahmad Saleh as one of the individuals allegedly contacted by certain defendants in organizing or coordinating attacks.

Defendants’ responses ranged from partial to complete denial, with some contesting the validity of digital evidence (such as phone communications) and others questioning the conditions under which their statements were obtained.

Several defense lawyers indicated to the media that their clients had not yet been granted adequate opportunity to present their full defense, prompting the court to defer detailed hearings to later sessions.

B. Second Group: Members of Current Security and Defense Forces

The court then proceeded to interrogate the defendants affiliated with the Ministry of Defense and current security forces.

• Charges against this group focused on the killing of unarmed civilians during military and security operations in March, supported in part by video recordings circulated on social media.
• Additional charges include looting, theft of homes and commercial premises, arson, violations of rules of engagement, and excessive use of force.

Several defendants denied committing intentional crimes, asserting that they acted in self-defense or in execution of orders under conditions of armed confrontation with groups affiliated with the former regime.

4. Voices from the Courtroom: The Human Dimension

A. “Umm Mohammad” – A Victim of Both Regimes

A powerful testimony was given by “Umm Mohammad” (pseudonym, 46 years old), the mother of one of the accused members of the current security forces:

• She expressed hope for her son’s release, stating that he had merely attempted to defend his colleagues after 18 of them were killed by remnants of the former regime.
• She recounted multiple personal tragedies, including the death of her mother and nephew under shelling by the former regime, the death of her brother in the notorious Saydnaya prison, and the killing of another relative during the Coastal Events.
• She concluded with a stark statement:
  “Those responsible in the regime should have been tried first… Why is Bashar al-Assad not being tried for the crimes he committed? Why do they only defend minorities and not defend us?”

Her testimony reflects a complex sense of injustice, stemming both from past abuses and from concerns that current proceedings may be selective or incomplete.

---

B. “Umm Ahmad” – Between Poverty and Accusation

On the other side of the courtroom stood “Umm Ahmad” (28 years old), holding her two-month-old child, born while her husband was in detention.

• Her husband, a construction worker, is accused of killing members of government forces and receiving external funding—charges he denied during the session.
• She stated that they had joined a Facebook group with former regime members “to obtain a salary,” as they had no income.
• A source close to her husband alleged that his confession was obtained under torture, a serious claim that raises concerns about the admissibility and legality of evidence.

Despite her concerns, she acknowledged that the current system shows greater respect for rights compared to the former regime, yet fears her husband may be used as a scapegoat.

5. Judicial Decisions and Conclusion of the Session

The session lasted approximately two hours and focused on:

• Verifying the presence and identities of the defendants.
• Reading the charges.
• Conducting brief preliminary interrogations without entering into detailed examination of evidence.

At the conclusion of the session, Judge Zakaria Bakkar ordered:

• Adjournment of proceedings and postponement of detailed hearings for the 14 defendants to two separate sessions on 18 and 25 December 2025, with each session dedicated to one group of defendants (former regime affiliates and current security personnel).

The first session concluded without substantive rulings (such as release or extended detention orders), but it conveyed a clear political and judicial message: accountability is intended—at least in principle—to extend to actors on both sides.

VII. Preliminary Human Rights Assessment of the Trial Process

1. Notable Positive Aspects

Linkage to a relatively independent investigative process:
The existence of a national investigative committee that has been operating for several months and referring cases to the judiciary provides a more institutional and professional basis for the proceedings, as opposed to purely ad hoc or politically driven prosecutions.

Publicity and relative transparency:
The holding of the session in the presence of media and relatives of the defendants, along with the partial broadcasting of proceedings عبر official channels, represents a significant step compared to Syria’s long history of closed and non-transparent trials.

Inclusion of members of current state institutions among the accused:
For the first time, legal proceedings have been initiated against security and military personnel affiliated with the current authorities, rather than exclusively targeting political opponents. This constitutes an important and positive precedent.

2. Gaps and Concerns

A. Applicable Legal Framework

• The proceedings are conducted under the ordinary Syrian Penal Code, which does not incorporate specific legal definitions of war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, or enforced disappearance.
• Consequently, serious violations that may amount to international crimes are legally characterized under ordinary offenses such as “homicide,” “formation of armed groups,” or “incitement to sedition,” potentially diminishing the gravity of the conduct in legal classification.

B. Fair Trial Guarantees

Pursuant to Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as interpreted by General Comment No. 32 of the Human Rights Committee, fair trial standards require:

• Judicial independence and impartiality
• Public hearings
• Presumption of innocence
• The right to defense and legal counsel
• Adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense
• The prohibition of torture and coerced confessions
• The right to examine witnesses

Based on available information:

• Public hearings appear to be relatively ensured.
• Judicial independence remains subject to question, particularly in the absence of comprehensive judicial reform following the fall of the former regime.
• The extent to which defense rights are guaranteed—including access to case files, communication with counsel, and the ability to cross-examine prosecution witnesses—remains unclear.
• Reports from relatives alleging that certain confessions were obtained under torture or coercion raise serious concerns, as international law strictly prohibits the use of such evidence.

C. Scope of Accountability and Non-Selectivity

• There are concerns among victims and their families that the proceedings may focus primarily on mid-level or lower-level perpetrators, without extending accountability to those who issued orders or failed to prevent violations.
• Testimonies such as that of “Umm Mohammad,” who called for the prosecution of Bashar al-Assad and senior officials of the former regime, indicate that segments of society perceive these proceedings—despite their importance—as insufficient to address higher-level responsibility for crimes committed prior to March 2025.

VII. Preliminary Human Rights Recommendations

1. Strengthening Fair Trial Guarantees

• Publicly affirm the right of all defendants to independent legal counsel, adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense, and the right to examine prosecution witnesses.
• Allow independent human rights observers to monitor proceedings and assess compliance with international standards.

2. Investigation of Torture Allegations

• Initiate independent and impartial investigations into any allegations of coerced confessions.
• Exclude any evidence obtained under torture if substantiated, and hold those responsible for such acts criminally accountable.

3. Expanding the Scope of Accountability

• Ensure that prosecutions are not limited to lower-ranking individuals but extend—based on evidence—to those who ordered, facilitated, or acquiesced in violations, regardless of their affiliation.

4. Harmonization with International Law

• Undertake legislative reform to incorporate definitions of war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, and enforced disappearance into Syrian domestic law, within a broader transitional justice framework.

5. Victim Reparations and Participation

• Establish a formal mechanism for victim compensation and reparations.
• Ensure proper documentation of victims and enable their participation in judicial proceedings as rights-holders, not merely as witnesses.

6. Continued Publicity of Trials

• ontinue ensuring the public nature of proceedings by broadcasting hearings or publishing summarized records thereof, provided that this does not compromise the safety and security of witnesses, in order to enhance public confidence in the judiciary.

Annex (1): Syrian Legal Framework Applicable to the Charges

A. Crimes of Sedition and Incitement to Civil and Sectarian Conflict

This category of offenses falls under crimes against internal state security in the Syrian Penal Code No. 148 of 1949 (as amended).

• The relevant provisions criminalize:
  • Incitement to civil war or sectarian strife;
  • Provoking individuals to take up arms against one another;
  • Inciting sectarian, religious, or racial tensions.
• Article 307, in particular, is frequently invoked in cases involving sectarian incitement and discrimination. According to prevailing legal interpretations, it penalizes any acts, speeches, or writings that may provoke inter-communal conflict or demean a particular group.

In the context of the Coastal Events, the court is expected—legally—to examine:

• Preceding incendiary rhetoric (including publications, speeches, and communications);
• Orders issued to field operatives that may reflect a sectarian or retaliatory intent.

---

B. Formation of Armed Groups and Attacks on Public Authorities

The Syrian Penal Code addresses unlawful associations and armed groups through several provisions criminalizing:

• The formation of groups intended to commit felonies against persons or property;
• Participation in armed groups conducting attacks against the state or specific communities;
• The use of force against public authorities (including the military and security forces).

In the present case, charges such as “formation of armed groups” and “attacks on public authorities” fall within this framework. These may apply both to former regime elements who allegedly attacked state forces and to security personnel who formed irregular or uncontrolled units involved in acts of violence, looting, and destruction.

---

C. Crimes of Killing, Looting, and Destruction

These offenses fall under:

• Crimes against persons (including intentional homicide, manslaughter, and assault resulting in death);
• Crimes against property (including theft, robbery, pillage, and deliberate destruction of public and private property).

Given the scale and systematic nature of the reported violations, a significant human rights question arises as to whether classifying these acts as ordinary crimes (e.g., murder or theft) is legally sufficient, or whether they may objectively constitute crimes against humanity or war crimes under international law, particularly where patterns of widespread or systematic attacks against civilian populations are evident.

---

D. Affiliation with the Former Regime and Communication with Its Officials

As a matter of principle:

• Mere affiliation with the former regime does not in itself constitute a criminal offense unless accompanied by criminal conduct (such as conspiracy, espionage, or participation in acts of violence).
• In the Coastal Events case, the charges refer to communication with officers of the Republican Guard in the context of organizing or inciting violence, which may fall within the scope of crimes against internal state security and criminal conspiracy.

Annex (2): International Fair Trial Standards and Their Application to This Case

A. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Article 14

Article 14 of the ICCPR (to which Syria is a State Party) guarantees:

• The right to be tried before a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law;
• The right to a public hearing, subject to limited exceptions;
• The presumption of innocence until proven guilty;
• The right to be promptly informed of charges in detail and in a language understood by the accused;
• The right to legal representation and adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense;
• The right to be present at trial, to examine witnesses, and to call witnesses in one’s defense;
• The prohibition of compelled self-incrimination.

General Comment No. 32 of the UN Human Rights Committee elaborates on these guarantees, emphasizing that the right to a fair trial is a cornerstone for the protection of all other rights.

---

B. Assessment in Light of the Coastal Events Trial

Based on available information:

• Publicity: Largely ensured (media presence, partial broadcasting, attendance of families).
• Independence and impartiality:
  • Publicly affirmed by the presiding judge and investigative authorities;
  • However, no comprehensive assessment has yet been made regarding the judiciary’s independence from the executive, particularly in the absence of full constitutional and legal reform following the fall of the former regime.
• Right to defense:
  • Insufficient information is available regarding full access to independent legal counsel and case files.
• Prohibition of torture and coerced confessions:
  • Documented allegations in media reports that at least one confession was obtained under torture necessitate an independent investigation and the exclusion of such evidence.
  • Failure to do so would seriously undermine the legitimacy of the proceedings.

---

Overall, while the trial reflects positive procedural developments—notably public hearings and accountability involving current state actors—it requires stronger safeguards and greater transparency, particularly regarding defense rights and allegations of torture, to comply fully with Syria’s obligations under international law.

Annex (3): Victims – Figures and Overview

1. Number of Victims and Patterns of Violations

• A government investigation referred to the judiciary indicates that at least 1,426 individuals were killed during the Coastal Events, the majority of whom were civilians, particularly from the Alawite community in affected villages.
• Human rights and media reports document patterns including:
  • Extrajudicial executions;
  • Arson of homes, shops, and commercial properties;
  • Widespread looting and pillage;
  • Arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances.

---

2. Absence of a Comprehensive Official Victim List

As of the first trial session, no complete and publicly available official list of victims exists. Instead:

• Partial lists have been compiled by the National Investigation Committee but have not been fully published.
• Documentation efforts are ongoing by organizations such as the Syrian Network for Human Rights and local monitoring groups; however, these datasets remain fragmented and lack official recognition.

---

3. Victim Inclusion in the Justice Process

Effective integration of victims into the judicial process requires:

• Publication of victim lists in a manner that respects privacy and ensures the safety of survivors;
• Enabling victims’ families to participate in proceedings as civil parties or claimants, where legally permissible;
• Establishing a dedicated compensation and reparations mechanism for victims of the Coastal Events.

Prepared by: Almoutassim Al Kilani
PhD Researcher – Specialist in International Criminal Law and Human Rights
December 2025