Since the first hearing on November 18, 2025, the military court in Aleppo (northwest Syria) has been trying to determine individual responsibility for a series of attacks that, a year ago, marked one of the bloodiest episodes of the actual Syrian transition.
The latest hearing, held on April 2, 2026, is part of that complex legal process. It was broadcast in part via video on the Facebook page of the Syrian Ministry of Justice. Justice Info—which was present in Aleppo in November—followed the proceedings remotely from Paris. This is the fourth hearing of the trial tasked with judging both affiliates of the former regime accused of attacking forces of the new regime, and affiliates of the new regime who are themselves accused of having launched reprisals and massacres of Alawite civilians.
Independent observers and human rights organizations like My Rights and the Syrian Network for Human Rights believe that the court is now reaching a crucial moment when the evidence gathered will finally allow an assessment of the responsibilities of security forces on both sides.
While the hearings appear to focus primarily on former Assad supporters, the seven other defendants affiliated with the Ministry of Defence and General Security did also appear before the Aleppo court, and evidence was presented according to observers present at the trial. However, unlike the seven defendants linked to the former regime, their appearance was not broadcast live. In official statements, these defendants are generally referred to simply as “defendants,” with no mention of their affiliation with current security forces, while the other seven are often described as “foulouls,” a term used to refer to supporters of the former regime.
Almoutassim Al-Kilani, a legal expert in international criminal law and human rights and founder of the NGO My Rights, thinks this difference in public presentation of the trial raises questions about the transparency and fairness of the proceedings.
Justice under scrutiny
In a country where the judicial system has long been associated with the security apparatus, every stage of the trial is closely scrutinized by international organizations and human rights monitoring mechanisms.
The work of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, mandated by the United Nations Human Rights Council, is now one of the main points of reference. Following the violence that struck the Syrian coast between March 7 and 9, 2025, it concluded that “over 1,400 people were killed, including approximately 100 women, predominantly Alawi civilians in Latakia, Tartus, Homs, and Hama governorates, entailing war crimes”. “In the wake of these violations, many people within the affected communities have expressed a deep sense of insecurity and marginalization, feeling all the more vulnerable in the absence of any meaningful political representation,” says its report published on March 12. “Tens of thousands of them have fled the country or are considering doing so.”
The Commission notes that the judicial procedures currently under way in Syria so far remain mainly focussed on suspected executors, while “the responsibilities of senior officials and commanders have not yet been clarified”. “To enable accountability, the broken judicial and law enforcement system inherited from the former government – which often served as a tool to violate rather than protect Syrians’ human rights – needs to be transformed, and the independence, professionalism and legal competence of the judiciary must be guaranteed,” it adds.
A fourth, more rigorous hearing
On April 2, the Aleppo Criminal Court opened its session at the appointed time. The court’s president, Zakaria Bakkar, set the tone from the outset. “Those who are late will face the consequences. We are opening our session at ten o’clock sharp,” he declared before opening the hearing.
On that day, controls for entrance were particularly strict: credentials were checked repeatedly, and everyone’s identity was verified before entering the courtroom. Syrian and foreign journalists, representatives of civil society organizations, victims’ families, and relatives of the defendants filled the public gallery, under the watchful eye of security forces.
Fourteen defendants, two different groups
The 14 people being prosecuted form two distinct groups. The first is comprised of people linked to structures at the time of ex-president Bashar al-Assad. The second group comprises members of the security forces linked to the transitional authorities.
Charges presented by the prosecution include facts related to participation in armed attacks, murder, looting and destruction of civilian property. In several cases, the charges also include incitement to violence on religious grounds.
The decision to try these two groups simultaneously reflects a delicate political and judicial choice. The transitional authorities wish to demonstrate that justice prevails for members of both the old and new regimes. But this strategy has also complicated proceedings by increasing the lines of responsibility and evidence to be examined.
Growing role of digital evidence
The hearing lasted one hour and was devoted primarily to digital evidence, including videos and recordings collected from cell phones and open sources.
According to military prosecutor Alaa Aldain Latif, several of these pieces of evidence were identified using digital forensic techniques. “Some videos were found through the analysis of open sources or directly on the defendants’ phones,” he explained to the court.
At his request, these items were projected onto a screen during the April 2 hearing, providing the court with a direct basis for cross-examination and analysis of the consistency of the defendants’ statements. The defence requested a further examination of these videos, which it claims were taken well before the date of the massacres on the coast.
Several defendants thus challenged the reliability of certain recordings, asserting that they may have been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence. Technical experts are now required to submit a report on the validity of this evidence.
Gradual evolution of the trial
Several independent observers, such as Al Kilani, believe that recent hearings reflect a shift in how the court is approaching the case.
According to a trial observation report published by My Rights, the initial hearings were primarily aimed at collecting the defendants’ accounts and documenting the main facts. The most recent sessions, however, mark a transition to a more analytical phase. The court is now seeking to identify contradictions in the statements and establish patterns of behaviour, rather than examining isolated incidents.
Al Kilani, who was present at the third hearing on March 15, summarizes this shift as follows: “You can sense that the trial is no longer in a listening phase but in an evaluation phase. The questions are becoming more precise, and the defendants’ answers more cautious.” This shift is also evident in the defence strategy, he says, as their arguments have become more structured and focused on the legal characterization of the facts.
Illegal detentions and allegations of ill-treatment
Despite these developments, several organizations continue to raise concerns regarding respect for procedural safeguards. The UN Commission of Inquiry emphasizes in its report that “detainees were held in both unofficial detention facilities and official detention centres, including branches of security services and prisons. They were arrested and detained without a judicial warrant, without being informed of the reasons for their detention, without being brought before a judge, and without access to legal counsel or the opportunity to challenge their detention.”
During previous hearings, some defendants had mentioned torture inflicted during their arrest or while in detention. The court indicated that it would take these statements into account when evaluating their confessions as presented in the case file.
A trial of symbolic importance
This trial carries symbolic significance for Syria in transition.
In the same report, the UN experts stress that “greater efforts are nevertheless needed to build new state institutions that respect the rule of law and human rights. […] Syrians are calling for judicial institutions and law enforcement agencies that protect everyone equally, as well as guarantees of non-repetition and accountability.”
Al Kilani points out that transitional justice cannot be limited to a few rare, symbolic trials. It requires in-depth investigations into the power structures that enabled the violence, and into the chains of command. However, as he notes in his observers’ report, “each hearing is an attempt to rebuild judicial practice in a context where institutions have been profoundly weakened.”
For the victims’ families, as well as for international observers, the stakes extend far beyond the scope of this case. The question is whether Syria will be able to establish a justice system capable of addressing past crimes and guaranteeing fundamental legal principles in the present. In this context, the Aleppo trial appears both as an attempt at a judicial response to the violence of 2025 and as a test for the future of justice in this country.
The upcoming hearings should allow for verification of the authenticity of digital evidence, the hearing of new witnesses, and the delivery of a verdict—scheduled for April 23.
