A Calgary man has been found guilty of terrorism-related offenses for his involvement with ISIS in Syria. Jamal Taan Borhot, 35, was convicted of three charges after a judge determined he fought for the terrorist group during a trip to Syria from May 2013 to April 2014. The ruling was made by Court of King’s Bench Justice Corina Dario, who announced the verdict in court on Monday. Eight family members were present to hear the decision. Following the verdict, Dario revoked Borhot's bail, and he was taken into custody. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for a later date. Borhot and his cousin, Hussein Borhot, were charged by the RCMP in 2020. Hussein pleaded guilty to similar charges in 2022 and received a 12-year prison sentence. Jamal's trial faced multiple delays, including changes in defense counsel and federal court proceedings regarding sensitive disclosures. Last year, Dario rejected a defense motion to stay the charges due to these delays. In her ruling, Justice Dario relied on various pieces of evidence, including travel documents, Facebook messages, and intercepted phone calls. Prosecutors Kent Brown and Domenic Puglia presented evidence indicating that Borhot trained with ISIS, served as a commander, created propaganda videos, and attempted to recruit others to join the fight. After returning to Canada, Borhot denied ever traveling to Syria during police interviews. However, intercepted communications from 2020 revealed discussions about his time in Syria and his involvement with ISIS. The Crown also highlighted Facebook messages in which Borhot expressed extremist views and encouraged others to join him in Syria. Dario noted that Borhot's comments were “filled with hatred toward non-Muslims” and indicated he was willing to kill for his beliefs. Defense attorney Pawel Milczarek argued that the Crown did not prove its case, suggesting that the evidence was circumstantial. He claimed it was “reasonably possible” that Borhot's communications were fabricated to gain status among his peers and family. Milczarek stated, "The Crown’s case has failed to prove that the guilt of the accused is the only rational inference available on all of the evidence before the court." The trial lasted 40 days, with portions held behind closed doors due to national security concerns. The case has drawn significant attention as it highlights the ongoing issues related to terrorism and radicalization.