Alawite massacres trials: verdicts handed down in Aleppo

Thursday September 17, 2026. Four defendants enter the Aleppo courthouse, flanked by soldiers. They walk forward, handcuffed to each other by one hand, the other free. They are led to the courtroom where they are to be tried by the Aleppo Military Court, then put into a metal cage.

In the courtroom, their families and those of victims have taken their seats, amidst numerous journalists. The hearing is public and broadcast on television. When the judges enter, everybody rises. Then silence falls. The presiding judge, Zakaria al-Bakkar, opens the proceedings “in the name of the Syrian Arab Republic and its people”.

This marks the conclusion of trials which began in November 2025. The trials are seen as a first test for the Syrian justice system since the fall of the former regime. Fourteen defendants were divided into two groups of seven: the first comprising a militia that fought alongside Bashar al-Assad’s troops; the second comprising members of the security forces under the new Syrian authorities.

Three militiamen and a soldier sentenced on September 17

After setting out the relevant sections of the law, the presiding judge delivers the first verdict, beginning with the “foulouls” – militiamen loyal to the former regime.

Tahani Ahmed, born in Latakia in 1974, is found guilty of “complicity in an armed group whose aim was to kill, loot and steal” and sentenced to life imprisonment. His civil rights are revoked. He is, however, acquitted of the charge of incitement to civil war, as the court deemed this had not been proven.

The judge then turns to Hassan Hulbié: “Do you have a lawyer? Listen to the verdict, Hassan.” He pronounces Hulbié’s acquittal on grounds of reasonable doubt and insufficient evidence. Hulbié had been charged with incitement to civil war, leading an armed group, murder, conspiracy, looting and theft. The judge orders his immediate release.

Silence in the courtroom grows heavier. Unlike in other hearings, where the judge had to call the courtroom to order, no one speaks. Everyone is waiting for the final two verdicts.

“Hadi Qablan, do you have a lawyer? Listen to the verdict, Hadi.” Born in Latakia in 1971, Qablan is found guilty of “aggression aimed at provoking a civil war and sectarian clashes”, of having “armed Syrians and incited them to kill and loot”, and of leading an armed group that attacked the security forces, resulting in the deaths of at least two people. He is sentenced to death by hanging.

The judges then leave the courtroom. They announce a recess to examine documents submitted, before delivering a fourth verdict. A prolonged silence falls over the courtroom.

On his return, Judge Al-Bakkar reads out the names of the other defendants and announces the date of their next hearing. He then calls Bassel Marai al-Hassan to hear the decision on his case. Born in Idlib in 1995 and a member of the Ministry of Defence forces’ 52nd Brigade, he is found guilty of “intentional murder” and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment.

The judge says the verdicts may be appealed within 30 days, and then declares the hearing closed.

Three militiamen and six soldiers sentenced on October 15

After several postponements, the judges return to the cases of the ten other defendants nearly a month later, on October 15.

In the three cases involving militiamen, Al-Wadah Ismaël and Maher Ali are sentenced to death by hanging for “incitement to civil war and leading an armed gang”, whilst Maher Othman is sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for “complicity in these crimes”.

Following a brief adjournment of the hearing, the remaining seven defendants, members of the current Ministry of Defence, are brought before the court before their verdicts are announced. Mohammed Bakour, a soldier in the Army’s 82nd Division, is found guilty of intentional murder and acts of torture, and sentenced to 20 years in jail.

Ammar Abdel Aal, a soldier in the Army’s 54th Division, is sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for complicity in acts of torture. Captain Moustafa Shannan is sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on the same charge of complicity in acts of torture.

Khaled Mahamid, a soldier in the Army’s 54th Division, is sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for insubordination and failure to comply with military orders. Mahmoud Chahine is sentenced to two months in jail for causing bodily harm through negligence.

Finally, the court acquits Abdel Raouf Bakr, a soldier in the Army’s 50th Division, and Mohammed Louay Zarzouri, a soldier in the Army’s 54th Division.

Of the 14 trials currently underway in Aleppo, only one has not yet been concluded: that of militiaman Mohammed Chamalas. In this case, Judge al-Bakkar ordered the screening of a new video relating to the massacres, before questioning the accused: “Have you watched the video carefully, Mohammed? What do you think of it?” Chamalas told the court that the voice heard in the recording was not his own. The judge therefore decided to adjourn the hearing until Thursday October 22, pending the results of a technical voice analysis.

A first judicial response

The Independent National Commission, established on March 9, 2025 by transitional president Ahmed al-Charaa, recorded 1,426 people killed during the violence on the coast in March 2025 – the majority of whom were civilians – and identified 238 members of the security forces.

Presented on July 22, 2025, its findings highlight serious violations and identify people allegedly responsible who could be subject to legal proceedings. They partly echo those of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, mandated by the United Nations Human Rights Council, which documented serious violations of international humanitarian law and called for prosecutions.

The conduct of the Aleppo trials provides a concrete insight into the new Syrian justice system in action. These four verdicts – one acquittal and three convictions – as well as the range of sentences, from 20 years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment and the death penalty, provide a first picture.

“The trials on the coast violence do indeed serve as a learning model for the new Syrian justice system,” says Almoutassim al-Kilani, a legal expert in international criminal law and human rights, founder of the NGO My Rights and present at several hearings – although, he adds, “of course, many mistakes were made”.

“These proceedings are public”

Reporting on the ground for Justice Info, journalist Karam Amer visited the Aleppo courthouse on several occasions to attend the hearings scheduled for Thursday September 24 and Thursday October 1.

The modern and imposing building is situated in the west of the city, behind a vast esplanade crossed by a tarmac road. Inside, the hearings of the Fourth Criminal Chamber are held on the first floor.

On September 24, when he arrived at the main entrance with authorisations from the ministries of Information and Justice, the journalist was refused entry, with the sole response being: “No journalists are allowed into the courthouse.” He was told that the hearing was “administrative”. At the end of the session, he learned that the hearing had involved an expert examining videos attributed to certain defendants to verify their authenticity. Around ten families had been able to attend.

On October 1, the journalist was able to enter the courthouse by presenting himself as an ordinary visitor, after leaving his equipment outside. Once inside, Judge Al-Bakkar explained to him that the hearing had been postponed again “for administrative reasons relating to the transfer of detainees”. The judge nevertheless stressed that “these proceedings are public. The media and all citizens have the right to attend”.

According to Judge Al-Bakkar, the proceedings are governed by the rules of military justice but are taking place before a civilian criminal court because the president of the Aleppo military court, having served on the commission of inquiry, could not legally preside over the trial. The judge also said seven other cases concerning the violence on the coast therefore fall within his jurisdiction, whilst others are being heard by the military courts.

In the courthouse lobby, a defence lawyer interviewed by Justice Info also stressed that these trials are public. “These are public trials and all Syrians have the right to attend -- media and independent journalists, young lawyers and even ordinary citizens,” said Derar Alhaji. Standing beside him, another lawyer summed up the issue: “This decision is being handed down in the name of the Syrian people. How could it be handed down without the people knowing the reasons behind it?”

Uneven communication

Al-Kilani thinks the way the hearings and adjournments have unfolded raises a key question: to what extent have these trials actually been public and accessible to citizens, as well as to the press?

He also highlights an imbalance in communication about the trial between information on defendants linked to the former regime and members of the current government forces. “One cannot say that this difference was systematic, but the information that emerged about the hearings involving former combatants was clearly more extensive than that concerning members of the Defence Ministry,” says Al-Kilani.

The publicity surrounding a trial is not limited to its broadcast, he adds. It requires that hearings be announced, accessible to the public and the press, and that decisions and their reasoning be made known. But while official information, extracts from hearings and independent reports make it possible to follow part of the proceedings, access to judicial documents remains patchy. The fact that documents are presented in court or mentioned in a report does not mean they are accessible in their entirety.

So Al-Kilani thinks the issue is also fair communication concerning all parties to the trial, with the publication of key documents and legal reasoning, subject to the necessary safeguards for victims and witnesses.

The numerous hearing adjournments raise the question of the pace of proceedings. Whilst an adjournment may be necessary to ensure a fair trial, Al-Kilani acknowledges, it may also reveal difficulties in managing the proceedings.

Several adjournments have been explained by specific factors, such as a change of lawyer, awaiting reports and technical expertise, or allowing the defence more time to respond to new documents.

What next for trials on this violence?

These initial verdicts handed down in Aleppo are just a first. Of the 298 suspects identified by the Commission of Inquiry, the 13 people convicted to date represent only a fraction. Four further trials are taking place in Damascus, behind closed doors, involving four defendants. This approach has been criticised by Al-Kilani, who believes that “live broadcasting is an essential means of ensuring the transparency of trials”.

On April 26, 2026, President Ahmed al-Charaa wrote on his X account: “Justice will remain one of the noblest values for which our people have fought. It is a key objective which the State and its institutions are committed to ensuring is realised, in order to deliver justice to the victims, heal wounds, strengthen civil peace and social cohesion, and reaffirm our commitment to prosecuting those responsible for the suffering and pain endured by our people.”

As the first verdicts are handed down in Aleppo and Damascus, one question remains: how does the new Syrian justice system intend to proceed with these cases, extend prosecutions to other suspects, whilst ensuring for the long term that trials are fair, transparent and open to the public?

Recommended reading

The Bitter Scales of Justice in Syria