Syria has embarked on a controversial trial related to the mass killings of Alawite civilians that occurred in March 2025. The public proceedings began on November 18, 2025, in Aleppo, following organized massacres that claimed around 1,400 lives in the coastal Alawite regions of Latakia and Tartus. Reports from the time indicate that armed individuals targeted victims based on their Alawite identity, often blaming them for alleged crimes associated with the previous government.
Now, the country is under the control of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a group with roots in Al-Qaeda, following the ousting of President Bashar al-Assad. Interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa has condemned the recent violence, calling it a threat to national unity. He has vowed to hold accountable those responsible for the massacres. The trial proceedings, however, raise questions about their legitimacy amidst a backdrop of judicial corruption and historical misuse of the judiciary as a politically motivated tool.
Government statements claim that the trials aim to address not just the recent atrocities but also past crimes committed during the Assad regime. Officials report that 563 defendants have been referred to the judiciary, including seven accused of attacking Alawite communities and seven accused of inciting sectarian unrest. The charges span a range of serious allegations, including murder and civil war fomentation. Interestingly, despite the broad scope of accusations, many observers consider the moves to be a means to consolidate power and divert attention from the significant involvement of transitional government forces in the violence.
Alawite community members have expressed skepticism about the intentions behind these trials. They argue that the judicial process is a performance designed to legitimize the current government’s authority, rather than a genuine pursuit of justice for the victims of the massacres. This belief stems from the history of corruption and interference that has characterized Syria’s judiciary under the Assad regime, with little indication that any real independence exists in the current system.
Additionally, following the public dismantling of non-state armed groups by al-Sharaa earlier this year, HTS’s ideological legacy looms large. The group’s origins in Sunni jihadism shape its interactions with minority populations, including the Alawites, Christians, and secular Baathists. These communities, previously afforded some protection under Assad’s rule, now find themselves vulnerable to being labeled as colluders with a regime that is no longer in power.
Concern remains high within the Alawite community. Leaders such as Mohammad al-Zuaiter, who has firsthand experience of political imprisonment under Assad, have warned about the potential for show trials lacking proper legal frameworks to ensure fairness. His apprehension articulates a fear that without appropriate safeguards, the current trials might merely serve to scapegoat certain groups while perpetuating the cycle of violence and sectarian strife.
The aftermath of the March massacres continues to unfold. Despite al-Sharaa’s assurances, there are ongoing reports of sectarian violence, disappearances, and kidnappings throughout Syria. The Alawite Association of the United States has voiced alarm over the treatment of Alawites and other minorities, particularly in neighborhoods like Al-Sumariyah. They describe a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing, pointing to forced evictions, harassment, and the use of intimidation tactics.
Critics of the current judicial approach argue that the proceedings in Aleppo amount to a “kangaroo court” with little real intention of bringing justice for the communities who suffered. The association highlights the absurdity of putting only seven defendants on trial when thousands participated in the violent events. This selective accountability is seen as an attempt to equate perpetrator with victim, further complicating efforts to establish true justice and reconciliation within the fractured country.
In light of the broader geopolitical landscape, these developments in Syria suggest a continuation of entrenched divisions and violence. The call for an independent international investigation resonates strongly among those seeking genuine accountability for war crimes. For a lasting peace, a more transparent judicial process, along with the protection of civilian populations, should underpin any political reform in the troubled region. The urgency for the international community to act remains clear, as many anticipate that failure to secure justice will prolong Syria’s suffering and isolation.
"*" indicates required fields
