📰 Syria and the Test of Justice: The Trial of Coastal Massacre Perpetrators

On 18 November 2025, the Palace of Justice in Aleppo witnessed a historic moment with the opening of proceedings against fourteen individuals implicated in the coastal massacres. This unprecedented trial marks a turning point in syrian legal history—not merely because it is the first public, televised session in decades, but because it targets figures affiliated with the emerging ruling authority. For the first time, it signals an official acknowledgment that no one, including members/" class="auto-internal-link">members of the current regime, is above the law and that violations committed by state actors will face judicial scrutiny. The trial attracted considerable attention from local, regional, and international media, as well as human rights organisations. The authorities clearly intended to project an image of transparency and to bolster public confidence in the state’s ability to hold perpetrators accountable.

Yet the media spectacle exposed a troubling dissonance between appearance and legal substance. Public proceedings alone cannot compensate for the absence of fundamental guarantees of a fair trial, nor for weak investigative oversight, nor for the structural flaws entrenched in syria/" class="auto-internal-link">syria’s legal system. Notably, this legal ambiguity became evident when the presiding judge declared that the court was a “national and independent tribunal,” applying the armed forces Penal Code, the General Penal Code, and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The armed forces code permits only two stages—investigation and trial before a criminal court—with appeals allowed before the Court of Cassation. By contrast, the civilian Code of Criminal Procedure mandates a full sequence: investigative judge, referral judge, criminal court, and finally the Court of Cassation, thus ensuring procedural oversight.

This raises a vital question: if the court is operating under military law, why cite Law No. 112 of 1950, a civilian criminal code? Such contradictions undermine the trial’s credibility and highlight deeper dysfunctions in Syria’s judicial framework. In fact, syrians have long awaited accountability for the grave crimes committed by the Assad regime since 2011—mass killings, systematic torture, and acts of genocide. Yet justice now begins with the coastal massacres alone.

This prompts a fundamental question: can this trial truly be considered a step towards transitional justice, as asserted by the Ministry of Justice in a latest statement describing it as “part of the effort to achieve transitional justice and uphold the law, reinforcing principles of accountability and justice within the state”? That characterisation is misleading. The trial is taking place before a regular military criminal court in Aleppo, based on military and…