Inside the Ahmad H. Trial #12: The Defense's Work Philosophy
Hanseatic Higher Regional Court – Hamburg, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #12
Hearing Dates: September 10 & 11, 2024
CAUTION: Some testimony includes descriptions of torture.
Note that this summary is not a verbatim transcript of the trial; it is merely an unofficial summary of the proceedings.
Throughout this summary, [information located in brackets are notes from our trial monitor] and “information placed in quotes are statements made by the witness, judges or counsel.” The names and identifying information of witnesses have been redacted.
[Note: SJAC provides a summary of the proceedings while redacting certain details to protect witness privacy and to preserve the integrity of the trial.]
SJAC’s 12th trial monitoring report details days 19 and 20 of the trial against Ahmad H. in Hamburg, Germany. On the first day, P17, the wife of witness P4 testified in court about her own experiences of detention by the NDF as well as those of her husband. Like her husband, she talked about three incidents when P4 had been arrested. During the last time, her husband had disappeared for several months. The third arrest was new information for the court as both witnesses had only talked about two arrests during their respective police interviews but then mentioned the third one in court. The witness herself had not seen Ahmad H. arrest P4, but her husband had told her that “Abu Haider” was present during his first kidnapping and had beaten him. The witness identified the Accused as Abu Haider in court as well as on a photo shown to her by the Judge. The person in the photo, however, was identified by the Judge as a different person, also called Abu Haider.
The day ended with the testimony of a former decision maker from the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), who had interviewed Ahmad H. at the time. He testified that he was not able to remember the interview at all as he had worked on over 2000 cases at the time.
On the second day, two new witnesses appeared in court. The first witness, [redacted name], P19, was the attending psychiatrist of witness P4. The doctor only knew that P4 had been detained and beaten on the head and the arms in Syria. P19 was asked about the symptoms and effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on memory and specifically the recollection of events in chronological order. The second witness of the day, P8, was previously summoned but failed to appear. On this trial day, he testified about his own arrest by the NDF when he was only 13 years old. He was unable to identify the Accused.
Day 19 – September 10, 2024
Today, a new witness, [redacted name], P17, the wife of P4 appeared in court [see Trial Report #6]. She has been living in [redacted location] for 7 years but was born and grew up in Syria. She is [redacted information]. Then, she and her family moved to Tadamon and stayed there for two years before fleeing to Lebanon. She explained that she and her family had moved to Tadamon because of the constant airstrikes over [redacted location]. She added that, retrospectively, instead of moving to Tadamon, they should have stayed in [redacted location] because what they experienced in Tadamon was much worse.
She recounted that she and her family were living in constant fear, that she had lost one brother, her mother-in-law and four of her husband's siblings. When recounting this, she said turning to the Accused: "My brother has been missing for 12 years and there is only one person here who knows whether he is still alive." The Judge then asked the witness whether she knew Ahmad H. and she responded "Yes, everyone knows him. The criminal is hiding. He was always around, driving his motorbike or a yellow excavator." When the Judge asked P17 what the Accused had done, the witness answered that Ahmad H. is one of the people who kidnapped her brother, she then told the Judge, "In fact, I want to ask him whether he knows where my brother is and whether he is still alive?" The Judge then responded that he was the one asking the questions right now.
The Judge went on to question the witness about where and when she had seen Ahmad H. P17 said that it had been at the automatic bakery as well as at a checkpoint, she also testified that the checkpoints were run by Abu Haider and [redacted name]. The Judge then asked whether the witness knew more than one Abu Haider, which she denied. [Note: Throughout the trial process there has been some confusion between two people who are both called Abu Haider, one is called Abu Haider Trucks and another one called Abu Haider [redacted name].]
The Judge asked P17 about the times that her husband was taken by the NDF, comparing her responses to her husband's testimony. The witness recounted that her husband was taken three times in total. Once he was held for six hours, the second time he was gone for 25-26 days and the third time for 5-6 months. P17 recalled that her husband had bruises and testified further that her husband had told her that Abu Haider was present and knew that her husband was owed money by [redacted name] for the tile placing job that P4 had undertaken for him [see Trial Report #6].
During P17’s account of her husband’s detention, Judge Sakuth asked the witness whether it had played a role that her husband was from Daraa. P17 responded that it had played a major role [referring to the reason for her husband’s arrest by the NDF] as the revolution had started in Daraa.
She explained that the first time her husband was taken from their family home was under the pretense that he was needed for some kind of work. The second time, she recalled, he was taken from a checkpoint. The third time out of his own car while he was working as a taxi driver, P17 concluded. The witness explained that her husband told her that he was tortured every time he had been taken. The last time had been the worst, P17 explained, since her husband was beaten, cold water was poured over his head, and he was hung up by his feet for hours. After the third time, P17 recalled, her husband was in a very bad condition psychologically, he began talking to himself and was scared to leave the house. After the third detention, P17 recounted, her husband fled to Lebanon.
P17 also remembered that the NDF was looking for her husband and came to her house. When they wanted to take P17 with them, her 7 or 8-year-old daughter clung to her and one of the NDF members beat the daughter on the head with his rifle. After this, the daughter had to get stitches, P17 explained. During the incident, a piece of fabric was pulled over P17’s head as well as her eyes and she was taken away by the NDF. They kept her for nine hours in a room that smelled moist, which made P17 believe that she was underground. She testified to having been beaten and threatened to come get her again in the future. P17 also explained that her husbands’ brothers, who were living with P17 and her family at the time, were taken as well but never came back.
The Judge then asked the witness about photos which were shown to P17 during a police interview. The police asked her to identify a specific person. P17 explained that she identified Abu Haider. When asked by the Judge how she had described his appearance at the time in Tadamon to the police during the interview, she explained that the Abu Haider she was referring to did not have as much gray hair [whilst looking at the Accused] and was always walking around in military clothing. She also said that he had been a bit stouter compared to today.
The Judge then asked P17 to come forward and showed her a selection of photos [not visible to the public]. Defense Counsel Moschref also went to the Judge’s bench to look at the photos. P17 said that she was seeing many of these photos for the first time. The Judge remarked that these photos were shown to her during the police interview, but the witness could not remember having seen them. She was then asked by the Judge to identify a person in one of the photos and she identified him as Abu Haider. P17 described the photo saying this was the excavator which he [the Accused] drove. Judge Sakuth then explained that the person in the photo was actually known as Abu Haider [redacted name] and that this was not the Accused. However, P17 was convinced that it was the Accused sitting in the courtroom. P17 said to the Judge: "Go ahead and ask him whether he knows me. I recognize him, even with gray hair.”
Judge Sakuth continued by asking the witness whether her husband had changed after the experienced events. P17 described that her husband would cry at night and sat crouched in the corner of the room. The witness pointed out that her husband got better after receiving psychological and medicinal treatment in Germany.
When asked by the Judge about her asylum hearing and why she did not mention that her husband had in fact been taken three times, not just once, and why she did not mention Abu Haider, she replied that the person conducting the asylum hearing told her to be succinct in her account. She wanted to provide more detail but was cut short by the interviewer.
The Judge was further interested in how P17 helped in releasing her husband as she had stated in the police interview that she was able to free him via “personal connections.” The witness explained that her brother-in-law (her husband’s brother) also worked at the checkpoint where Abu Haider had worked. The witness was then asked by the Judge whether it was possible that she and her husband were speaking about two different “Abu Haiders”, but the witness denied this. She explained that the person she had seen in the photo was Abu Haider and the person who was sitting in front of her now was also the same person. Judge Sakuth changed the topic and wanted to know whether P17 or her husband had suffered injuries from the times they had been detained. The witness explained that her husband still carried visible marks from the beatings on his shoulders and had a scar from a head injury he had suffered during the time he was detained. P17 had to get her teeth replaced, but she pointed out that she had not mentioned this during the police interview.
Judge Sakuth wanted to know whether P17’s husband told her what happened during his therapy sessions. P17 explained that sometimes he talked and sometimes he did not. She pointed out that after his testimony in court, his condition had slightly worsened. He sometimes sits in the dark and cries, rocking forwards and backwards, she explained. The Judge then asked the witness whether her husband had told her about what was said in court that day. P17 answered that he did not since he was told that it was forbidden to talk about it. The witnesses seemed visibly tired and asked whether the questioning would carry on for a long time. Upon this, the Judge announced a short break.
***
[10 - minutes - break]
***
Upon return from the break, Ahmad H. asked the interpreter to tell the Judge that he would like to leave for lunch because he needed 20 minutes to get there and back, and he feared he would not make it in time. The witness interrupted and said that it also took her three hours to get to court today. The Judge then said that he wanted to complete the questioning of the witness before going into lunch.
Hence, the Prosecution took over the questioning. First, Prosecutor Grätsch wanted to know where the witness and her family had lived. [Redacted name]. The Prosecutor then asked the witness to describe again how her husband had been arrested the first time. The witness explained how events of arrests by the NDF were generally unfolding. The Prosecution intervened and asked the witness to make a clear distinction between what she had witnessed personally compared to what her husband had informed her about, as well as compared to what was “generally known.” The witness seemed to have difficulties differentiating what she remembered among the categories provided by the Prosecutor. Prosecutor Grätsch asked who was concretely present at the time of her husband’s second arrest. The witness answered that her husband told her [redacted name] had been present as well as Abu Haider, she added that “he [i.e. Abu Haider] hit him [i.e. her husband]”.
The Prosecution then asked the witness about the mental state of her husband and how his behavior changed after the three arrests. The witness testified that he had nightmares, that he would sometimes cry, that he was often not concentrating when she was speaking to him, that she sometimes found him sitting in the dark with his knees held to his chest whipping forward and backward. The witness also explained that these issues became much better after her husband had started psychotherapy and taking medicine. She could not say which type of medicine though [note: her husband's psychotherapist is summoned for the hearing the next day].
***
[60 - minutes - break]
***
After the break, the Defense Team questioned the witness extensively. The questions revolved around the exact time when she had entered Germany and when she had applied for asylum, which P17 answered precisely. Defense Counsel Moschref went on to ask the witness as to why she had applied for asylum to which P17 answered that there was no specific reason. The Defense then asked the witness “So you abused the system without reason?”. Judge Sakuth immediately intervened and claimed that this was an insinuation on the part of the Defense and requested the Counsel to rephrase. The Counsel obliged and P17 responded that she wanted asylum status for herself as she wanted to work in Germany.
Counsel Moschref then proceeded to ask the witness again about the exact time her daughter was hit with a weapon and who took care of the children while P17 was under arrest. P17 recalled that it had been in 2013 and that her daughter was eight years old at the time. Her neighbors had taken care of the children while she was gone.
The Counsel then asked P17 why she left out details in her asylum hearing that she had mentioned today in court and whether she and her husband were confusing two different “Abu Haider” [i.e. Abu Haider Trucks and Abu Haider [redacted name]] when speaking about the events. The Defense also brought up the fact that the witness’s account was confusing in regard to what she had personally witnessed and what was hearsay. In the end, the witness testified that she believed remembering correctly that her husband had told her that Abu Haider along with [redacted name] had been present during all three arrests of her husband, but she was not so sure anymore. Upon questioning by the Defense, it also became clear that P17 had never actually seen Ahmad H. driving his yellow excavator but said that "it was generally known."
At some point during the questioning by the Defense, the witness got annoyed and said, "Why are you giving me the feeling as if I was the accused?". Upon which Defense Counsel Moschref replied, "That is my job." This in turn received a reaction from the Judges and the Prosecution who all shook their heads. Prosecutor Grätsch replied, "That is not your job Mr. Moschref and this is not the first time a witness made it clear to feel this way." The witness said she did not understand how the Defense Counsel could defend someone who had murdered women and children. Counsel Moschref then said that this is not what Ahmad H. is being accused of and claimed that Ahmad H. was being defamed by the witness. The Judge intervened and explained that the witness was obviously emotionally drained. Counsel Moschref replied that he understood as he had witnessed similar things, so he was able to relate.
Before the witness was released, she explained that she feared for her children and asked for their protection because she was scared that Ahmad H. had contacts and might use them to hurt her children. The Judge explained that as of now, he was not aware of any threats. The witness closed her testimony by praying to God not to forgive him [the Accused].
After the witness was released, another witness testified for the short remainder of the session, Mr. Christoph Maria Silbert, P18. Mr. Silbert was a decision-maker in the asylum procedure and conducted Ahmad H.’s asylum hearing. In court, he was not able to remember the Accused or the hearing at all. Upon questioning by the Judge, P18 recounted the general procedure of asylum hearings. However, he testified that he had conducted over 2000 asylum hearings and was not able to remember Ahmad H.’s hearing at all.
The proceedings were adjourned at 3:40 PM.
The next trial day will be on September 11, 2024, at 10 AM.
Day 20 – September 11, 2024
On this trial day, two new witnesses appeared in court. The first one, [redacted name], P19, was the psychiatrist of witness P4. P4 had been the doctor’s patient [redacted time] until the doctor went on parental leave. P19 recounted that a language interpreter was present during their sessions. After having been referred to P19 by the primary care facility for refugees, the doctor saw P4 every six weeks. P19 explained that he did not carry out trauma therapy with P4 and therefore, did not know specifics of the events that P4 had witnessed. The doctor only knew that P4 had been detained in Syria and beaten on the head and arms.
When asked by the Judge about P4's symptoms, P19 testified that P4 was suffering from the typical symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), namely depressive disorder, nightmares, flashbacks of being detained, and irritability. P4 also had headaches related to the beatings on the head. The doctor explained that he discussed medicinal therapy but also social perspectives with P4, for instance, related to the family's housing situation.
The medicine prescribed to P4 included [redacted information]. P19 explained that the first pharmaceutical is an antidepressant, the second one a tranquilizer to help with sleeping and the last one has the effect of lowering blood pressure to reduce the potential for excessive emotional agitation.
The Judge informed the witness that P4's wife was questioned the day prior and recounted what she had told the Court in terms of her husband's symptoms. The doctor confirmed that all of the information was correct.
After this, Judge Sakuth told the witness that P4 had told the police as well as during his asylum hearing that he had been detained by the NDF only once. In court, however, he testified having been detained three times. The Judge wanted to know from the doctor whether these misperceptions were related to P4's PTSD. P19 explained that events such as threat to life and events of death are related to great stress for a person, which in turn can have an impact on one's memory. Even after a long time has passed, it might well be that a person who has experienced such traumatic events has difficulties in recounting the events chronologically. The timeline of events can become mixed up. P19 added that it was called “fragmentation of memory.” The longer the events lie in the past, the harder it gets to remember the timeline accurately, the doctor explained.
The Prosecution's questions related to whether a trial testimony could potentially worsen PTSD symptoms of a witness, as well as whether it could alter the witness’s memory of past and traumatic events. The doctor confirmed that both effects were possible. He also noted that the act of testifying in court could act as a trigger, worsening PTSD symptoms.
The Defense did not have any questions, and the witness was dismissed.
***
[60 - minutes - break]
***
[During the break both Defense Counsel angrily discussed that "now the Prosecution could use this [the doctor’s] testimony for everything."].
After the break, a new witness was questioned, 24-years old [redacted name], P8. The witness was supposed to be heard at a prior trial date but failed to appear. He currently lives in [redacted location] but grew up in the [redacted location]. P8 was 13 years old when he was detained by the NDF on two different occasions. The first time he was detained, P8 played in the park. He recalled that his ID was taken, and he was loaded on a bus with other people. He further remembered that they drove for 15-20 minutes until he exited at "a place that must have been another city as it was completely destroyed.". The witness recounted having worked for 4-5 hours without food or water. He only received water at the end of the work, whilst being insulted by the guards. He remembered that he filled sacks of sand and transported them to a specific position. After the 4-5 working hours, he was released close to the automatic bakery. The second time, as P8 recounted, was identical, apart from the fact that he had been on the way to the swimming pool with his brother, who was also detained with P8.
The witness was then shown a photo by the Judge who told the witness that during the police interview P8 had said that he recognized the person in a photo or poster at the checkpoint. The witness clarified that he believed to have seen the individual in person and not in the photo at the checkpoint. The witness explained that photos of people at checkpoints only showed deceased individuals. Nonetheless, the witness could not say who the person in the photo was exactly.
The Judge then asked the witness whether he had seen anyone getting hurt during his detention. The witness explained that there was something but that he was strongly fighting to block out the memory. He added that he did not want to remember these things. The Judge expressed his understanding but that the Court needed to get a precise picture of the events. P8 explained that he had already talked about this three times in the asylum hearing, with Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) officers, [it was not specified when the third time was] and that every time he had to go through recounting the events, it was painful for him. The Judge responded that, unfortunately, the Court had to explore the specifics of the events. Hence, the witness recounted that two young men, who had been detained together with P8 the second time, were told separately from each other to walk to the frontline where the sandbags were stacked in order to test the protective shield and both were shot down and died immediately.
After recalling these difficult memories, P8 further recounted that his uncle was arrested and taken away for four months without a specific reason. After this, P8's father decided that they had to leave for a different district of Damascus.
Upon question by the Judges, the witness said that he does not recognize the Accused.
Neither the Prosecution nor the Defense had any questions. Before the witness was dismissed, the Judge asked P8 why he had not appeared at the hearing to which he had been summoned. P8 responded that partly because he had been completely overwhelmed with moving and partly because he had told the BKA that he did not want to testify again about the experiences, and because he feared for his family. The Judge admitted his fear for his family as a sufficient excuse to order an exemption from paying the fine imposed on witnesses who fail to appear before the court [note: According to ].
The proceedings were adjourned at 1:50 PM.
The next trial day will be on September 18, 2024, at 9:00 AM.