Enab Baladi –Mohammad Deeb Bazzet
One year has passed since the coastal events that erupted on March 6, 2025, amid ongoing questions about the judicial process and an incomplete search for justice.
Over the past year, trials have moved into the public eye. Court sessions were broadcast live, defendants stood before judges, and promises were made to break the cycle of impunity.
Yet after the cameras turned off, silence prevailed. There has been no clear announcement about the outcomes of the hearings, no explanation of the cases’ progress, and no details that could reassure families waiting to see accountability.
Two trial sessions
The Ministry of Justice had previously announced two trial sessions for defendants accused in connection with the events. Both hearings were broadcast live on official platforms, a move that was seen at the time as a sign of adopting a policy of open public trials.
On November 18, 2025, the Palace of Justice in Aleppo hosted the first public hearing for defendants accused of committing violations during the coastal events. A second session was later held on January 18 as part of what officials described as a judicial process aimed at holding those responsible for crimes against civilians and security personnel accountable.
However, as of the time of writing, the ministry has not announced the outcomes of those sessions, the rulings issued against the defendants, or subsequent judicial procedures related to the cases’ progress. Enab Baladi attempted to contact the ministry for clarification but received no response.
Limiting transparency to broadcasting sessions without publishing clear legal summaries or official statements regarding verdicts or future hearing dates has raised questions about the stage these cases have reached and whether they are proceeding according to a clearly defined judicial path.
Public trials not limited to open courtrooms
Legal experts say that public trials do not merely mean opening the courtroom or broadcasting proceedings, but also guaranteeing the public’s and victims’ right to know the results of trials and whether the procedures follow a clear timeline.
Syrian legal expert Al-Moutassim al-Kilani told Enab Baladi that the public nature of the hearings in the coastal events trials represents an important development compared with Syria’s long history of closed trials. He noted that the first session was attended by media outlets and relatives of defendants, with parts broadcast on official channels, while the presiding judge affirmed the principle of openness.
He added that the second session included relatives of defendants, some relatives of victims, as well as journalists and observers, giving it a public character that went beyond closed procedural proceedings. This openness, he said, generally aligns with fair trial guarantees.
However, al-Kilani stressed that transparency cannot be reduced to opening the courtroom to media or broadcasting footage. It must also include publishing reasoned verdicts, explaining the legal basis for criminal charges, clarifying how evidence was evaluated, and outlining the fate of the defendants and their rights to appeal.
“The seriousness of a trial is not measured by the presence of cameras, but by the transparency of judicial outcomes and the availability of societal and legal oversight.”
Al-Moutassim al-Kilani Syrian legal expert
He noted that the initial hearings were largely procedural, with detailed testimonies postponed during the early stages of the process. Therefore, assessing the seriousness of the trials depends on how subsequent sessions develop.
He added that the absence of clear official announcements about the outcomes of the sessions or the fate of defendants raises concerns about methodological transparency, especially in cases involving grave violations.
Downgrading the legal classification
According to reports, the events included the killing of at least 1,426 people, most of them civilians, amid sectarian motivated violence, field executions, arson, and looting. This makes the public’s right to know part of the victims’ right to truth, according to al-Kilani.
The course of the hearings reveals both positive elements and points of concern. On one hand, the indictment list includes defendants from two sides: seven linked to the former regime, and seven members of the Ministry of Defense and security forces under the current authorities, accused of killing unarmed civilians, committing looting and arson, and violating orders.
This dual nature of the charges, according to al-Kilani, indicates an attempt to avoid selective accountability, as the process theoretically targets members of the current authorities as well as their opponents.
However, he warned that the trials are being conducted under Syria’s Penal Code No. 148 of 1949, as amended, which does not contain specific definitions for war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, or enforced disappearance.
This could lead to serious violations being legally classified as ordinary crimes, effectively downgrading acts that, by their nature and context, may amount to international crimes.
He also pointed to allegations that confessions were extracted under torture. He stressed that the legitimacy of evidence depends on strict judicial scrutiny, ensuring the defense’s full access to case files, the ability to question witnesses, and the prohibition of evidence obtained through coercion.
Regarding transitional justice, al-Kilani said that forming an independent national committee to investigate and refer hundreds of cases to the judiciary is a meaningful step. However, he emphasized that transitional justice goes beyond judicial referrals and includes uncovering the truth comprehensively, reparations for victims, institutional reform, and guarantees of non-recurrence.
The value of these trials, he warned, will remain conditional on the existence of a declared national framework defining the goals and mechanisms of transitional justice. Continued ambiguity or partial approaches could weaken the symbolic impact of the judicial process and leave public trust in the judiciary fragile.
Openness alone is not enough
For his part, the director of the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR), Fadel Abdul Ghany, told Enab Baladi that the ongoing trials related to the coastal events can be seen as a positive step and a political and judicial message to victims and society that accountability is possible.
However, he said they do not represent a structural transformation unless accompanied by guarantees of judicial independence and a broader scope of accountability.
He added that the core value does not lie in public hearings themselves, but in transforming investigation results into genuine judicial procedures based on evidence and documentation, while enabling both defense and prosecution to perform their roles in line with fair trial standards.
Abdul Ghany pointed to a gap between criminal justice and transitional justice. Even if criminal trials are public, they remain only one component of accountability and do not constitute full transitional justice, which requires a broader set of tools, including truth seeking, reparations, institutional reform, and guarantees of non-recurrence.
He emphasized that transparency is an essential safeguard against abuse, but it must be accompanied by a comprehensive system of guarantees, including equality before the law, the presumption of innocence, effective defense rights, the right to appeal, prohibition of coercion, and reliance on evidence subject to judicial scrutiny.
Abdul Ghany added that any official ambiguity regarding the progress of cases, the status of defendants, or the enforcement of verdicts could strip transparency of its human rights value and undermine the public’s right to information about grave violations affecting society as a whole.
“These trials represent an important step, but they become a fully meaningful rights based foundation only if integrated into a comprehensive national strategy governed by the rule of law and aimed at legislative and institutional reforms that guarantee judicial independence and prevent future violations.”
Fadel Abdul Ghany Director of the Syrian Network for Human Rights
Findings of the fact finding committee
According to the findings of the investigation and fact finding committee on the Syrian coastal events, issued on July 22, 2025, groups described as “remnants of the former regime” carried out a series of large scale hostile operations using heavy, medium, and light weapons.
The attacks targeted army and General Security headquarters, checkpoints and patrols, and also included the blocking of main roads in the governorates of Latakia, Tartous, and Hama.
The committee concluded that these attacks resulted in the killing of 238 members of the army and General Security forces.
At the same time, the committee verified that widespread grave violations against civilians occurred during March 7, 8, and 9, 2025.
It documented the killing of 1,426 people, including 90 women. Civilians constituted the vast majority of the victims, along with a number of former military personnel who had previously reached settlement agreements with the government.
Although the committee did not rule out the possibility that some “remnant” fighters were among those killed, it concluded that most of the killings occurred outside the context of combat or after fighting had ended.
Widespread violations
The case dates back to March 6, 2025, when security tensions erupted in the countryside of Latakia (western Syria) following movements by elements of the former regime’s army targeting General Security forces.
Within hours, groups described by government circles as “remnants” seized areas in the cities of Latakia and Tartous, resulting in the deaths of security personnel.
In response, the Ministries of Defense and Interior deployed military reinforcements to the region. They were joined by armed factions allied with the government and local civilians who took up arms.
As these forces spread across the area, widespread violations and massacres against civilians were reported, leaving hundreds dead in incidents described in testimonies and human rights reports as having sectarian dimensions.
At dawn on March 7, government forces announced they had regained control of the areas where clashes had taken place. However, tensions did not fully subside, as extrajudicial killings continued until March 8, causing extensive human and material losses.
Following the end of the operations, Syrian transitional phase president Ahmed al-Sharaa issued a decision to form a fact finding committee. The presidency said the move aimed to uncover the circumstances surrounding the events and determine responsibilities.
A year after the events on Syria’s coast, a judicial process with no announced results Enab Baladi.
Hence then, the article about a year after the events on syria s coast a judicial process with no announced results was published today ( ) and is available on ُEnabbaladi ( Syria ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( A year after the events on Syria’s coast, a judicial process with no announced results )
Also on site :