Inside the Ahmad H. Trial #13: Chronological Confusion and Mistaken Identity?

Hanseatic Higher Regional Court – Hamburg, Germany 

Trial Monitoring Summary #13

Hearing Date: September 18, 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 13^th trial monitoring report details day 21 of the trial against Ahmad H. in Hamburg, Germany. During the first half of the day, P4 re-appeared in court. Much of his testimony was congruent with what he said the first time in court. The Defense questioned him again on what his wife said in court because she depicted several aspects differently than P4 related to their chronological order. The Defense filed a motion that a psychiatric expert opinion be commissioned to assess the value of P4's testimony. The Defense argued that the expert from last time, P18, was not a trauma expert and thus could not assess the reliability of the testimony. P4 was dismissed and informed that his testimony was completed.

During the second half of the day, P20, a witness who was scheduled to testify at an earlier date during the trial but had failed to appear, was questioned. He testified about his experience of having undertaken forced labor and one instance of kidnapping. The Judges’ questions were very similar to the questions they frequently ask witnesses with experiences of forced labor. P20 recalled a person, “Ahmad H.”, having been present when he was forced to do labor and testified that this person committed the massacre in Tadamon. However, P20 did not recognize the Accused and also explained that sometimes “that person” he referred to as “Ahmad H.” was called “Amjad Y.”

 Day 21 – September 18, 2024

On this trial day, witness P4, [redacted name], appeared in court again. Moreover, a new witness, P20, [redacted name], testified. Prosecutor Dr. Grätsch was unable to attend the trial day and was represented by a colleague. 

Before the first witness was questioned, the Defense filed a motion requesting that a psychological expert report be prepared for the witness P4. The Defense argued that aspects of P4’s testimony were not coherent in terms of their temporal sequence. Hence, false testimony could not be ruled out. In addition, the Defense argued that general statements made during the examination by the medical expert P19 [see for the results of this examination, Trial Day 20] could not be regarded as valuable because P19 was a psychiatrist, not a trauma therapy expert. The Prosecution rejected the motion, arguing that P19 did not claim to lack knowledge of specific trauma-related topics, but merely that he was unable to concretely assess certain issues. Judge Sakuth explained that the Judges would decide about the motion in due course. 

The Judge then started to question the witness as to how long he had lived in Tadamon. The Judge added that the witness's wife had told the Court that the family had lived in Tadamon for two years but P4 had testified that it had only been one year. P4 admitted that it may have in fact been a little longer than one year. Judge Sakuth then went on to ask the witness whether he had told his wife about Abu Haider. P4 confirmed that he had told her about Abu Haidar once. P4 also said that he had not known Abu Haider until the witness started working for Abu Haider’s boss. The Judge inquired whether P4 had told his wife what Abu Haider called himself back then. The witness answered that he only knew Abu Haider as “Abu Haider Trucks”, he did not know his real name. The Judge wanted to know whether P4 had told his wife about the specific addition of “Trucks”, which P4 confirmed. 

Subsequently, the Judge went on to explain that when P4 testified before, he had talked about three separate arrests and that the first arrest had lasted for two days. P4’s wife, however, testified that it had only lasted one day. Judge Sakuth hence wanted to know how P4 would explain this discrepancy. P4 replied that he had been beaten, did not have a watch and was blindfolded at the time of the arrest, so he felt like it had been longer. 

The Judge confronted P4 with the fact that his wife had told the Court that P4 had to undertake forced labor, to which P4 responded: “Yes, I didn't get paid.” Upon which the Judge asked more specifically: “But did you also have to carry sandbags to the front?” P4 recalled that a lot of people had to do that, but not him. 

The Judge then showed P4 a photograph, which was not visible to the audience in the public gallery, and asked whether P4 knew the individuals in the photo. The witness recognized one person at the bottom of the photo and explained that he had seen the person at the security office. He added that he did not know the person at the top of the photo. Judge Sakuth then asked the witness whether he knew someone called “Abu Haider Mario”. The witness denied. 

The Judge then went on to discuss a different thematic. Sakuth explained to the witness that P4’s wife had recounted that a relative of the witness campaigned for his release. “Do you mean my brother-in-law? His name is [redacted name], and he is married to my sister.”, the witness responded. Judge Sakuth wondered what made the witness think of this person in this moment. The witness answered that this person helped him after his arrest. This relative had not been in the same location where P4 was detained but P4 was told that his brother-in-law had asked for him at the security office. He was an ordinary recruit in the NDF. He took the job there because there was no other work, and they [the NDF] had put him at the Reeja checkpoint to undertake checks, P4 explained. The Judge wanted to clarify this point and explained that during the third arrest, apparently, an advocate for the witness got involved. A former client of the witness, who advocated for the witness not posing any danger. The Judge then asked the witness whether this had been his brother-in-law. “No. It was an officer I worked for at home.”, the witness answered. 

Then the Judge discussed P4’s flight from Tadamon and the exact time when he left, comparing the latter to the statement of P4’s wife. P4 explained that after his brothers were arrested, his wife called him and told him not to come back. After she called him, P4 stayed with a friend for 2-3 days. However, he did not manage to leave Syria, so he returned. After 2-3 days, he went to Lebanon. A back and forth followed between Judge Sakuth and the witness, whereby the Judge was confused by the chronological order of when the phone call between P4 and his wife occurred and where he had been at the time, as well as how this all fitted into the context of the arrests. 

Judge von Freier then informed the witness that neither P4 nor his wife mentioned the third arrest to the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) or during the asylum hearing. P4 explained that the first arrest did not count for them [him and his wife]. Judge von Freier responded that the dates of the arrests did not match either and asked P4 why he did not mention the third arrest, which had been the longest of the three arrests. P4 claimed that he did report it “everywhere.”

 The Prosecution asked the witness whether the last hearing in court had affected his health. P4 replied that he had made an appointment with his doctor for the next day because his mental state was not good. He had been afraid of testifying, so he had asked for an appointment. The Prosecution wanted to know whether his mental state was in the same condition today which the witness confirmed, but not as bad as the first time.

 The testimony was interrupted as the Accused asked for a bathroom break.

[10 - minutes - break]

After the break the Judge asked P4 another question that he missed to ask, which concerned the fact that P4’s wife testified that after the first arrest [the one that lasted one or two days], P4 said that Abu Haider had been present at the place of his arrest. The witness, however, denied and explained that this had occurred the second time he had been arrested and hypothesized that his wife might have been confused.

 The Defense started their questioning by showing the witness several photos and asked the witness whether he was able to identify anyone. P4 identified one person that he had seen in the security office before as well as the Accused on another photo. Finally, P4 identified “his [Ahmad H’s] superior: Abu Muntajab” and explained that he himself had worked for Abu Muntajab.

 The Defense then picked up the point of P4’s brother-in-law and asked the witness when he had found out that [redacted name] worked for the NDF. The witness answered that he had found out when [redacted name] married his sister. Counsel Moschref wanted to know why P4 did not mention his brother-in-law beforehand. The witness explained that he and his sister did not have much contact and that during his police interview most of the questions were about Abu Haider. Counsel Moschref then asked P4 why his wife said in court that [redacted name] had been responsible for P4’s release. The witness replied that [redacted name] would not have been able to release him because he did not have that power of influence.

 The Defense then went on to ask the witness how he had come to find his house in Tadamon. P4 explained that the person who had previously lived in the house had left. The wife of Abu Muntajab owned a house where P4, as well as two of his brothers worked. Abu Muntajab’s wife then helped P4’s family move into the house. P4 also shared that there had been empty houses everywhere as people fled their homes. Counsel Moschref wanted to know whether it had not been a problem for P4 to move into other people’s houses. P4 replied that he had no other choice and that Abu Muntajab’s wife gave him the house because he had worked for her. The Defense Counsel also wanted to know why the witness did not ask Abu Muntajab for help directly. P4 answered that “nobody could talk to him; it was too dangerous.”  

 The Defense then came back to ask the witness about the arrests. As the questions got repetitive, Judge Sakuth intervened since the witness had already answered them. Counsel Moschref then switched to how long the witness had worked as a taxi driver. Next, the Defense raised the third arrest again, followed by how the witness had organized his move into the apartment in Tadamon. The next question referred to the location from which the witness was kidnapped and arrested the first time. The Defense’s questioning appeared thematically disorganized, and the Prosecution got frustrated, asking the Defense Counsel to properly listen to the witness. 

Counsel Moschref then wanted to know how often P4’s wife had seen Abu Haider. The Prosecution intervened and said the witness would not be able to know this. P4 instead explained that Abu Haider often asked about him and said he would get him no matter where the witness would hide. Then, the witness asked whether he could quickly leave the courtroom to renew his parking ticket. Counsel Moschref intervened and said he would not advocate for that, as the witness might use the opportunity to call his wife. P4 suggested he could leave the pick-up number for his cell phone from the security office in the courtroom, so that the witness would not be able to take his cell phone outside the Court. He added that the Defense Counsel could accompany him if he was still concerned. Counsel Schaper simply replied “Absolutely not!” and went on to question the witness about the statement P4’s wife had made about their daughter having been injured when she was 8 months old. P4 corrected this and explained that his daughter was in the first grade at that time.

 The Defense then continued to ask P4 about the reason he was undergoing psychiatric treatment. P4 replied, “Because I am not normal. I went to a school to learn the German language. It took me 6 months to learn the alphabet and I still did not learn it. I was distracted because I could only think about what happened to me in Syria.”

 P4 was dismissed and informed that he did not need to come back, which P4 could not quite grasp at first and asked in disbelief, “Am I really done, I do not have to come back again?”. The Judge confirmed.

 Before the break, the Accused explained that he had not been treated for his cancer illness and that his legs were swelling up. He offered to show the Judge. Judge Sakuth denied the offer and made clear that he was not a doctor. However, the Judge explained that Ahmad H.’s doctors had told the Judge that the Accused had in fact had been treated. The Accused would need to ask for each telephone number he wanted to call to be activated through an individual request. The telephone call would also only be possible in the presence of the police and the interpreter. Ahmad H. complained that he had not talked to his wife for a year and two months.  This was left uncommented and the lunch break followed.

 The Judge referred to Ahmad H.'s request for several telephone numbers to be activated so that he could make calls from inside the prison. The Judge rejected this on the basis that the Accused would have to apply for each phone call individually.

[60 - minutes - break]

 After the lunch break, P20, [redacted name], testified. This witness was previously summoned but failed to appear before the Court. Counsel Moschref was no longer present after the break due to a headache.

 The Judge asked the witness to describe his life in Syria since 2011 and the reason for leaving Syria. P20 explained that he had been a student at the time, in his 11^th year. P20 recounted that he left Syria because of “Ahmad H. and other people, who lived in Tadamon because they left no one alone and forced people to do labor. They stole from people and insulted them.” The witness testified about his own experience of having been kidnapped to undertake forced labor. He explained that money was taken from him, and he was always suspected of having done things which he had not done.

 When questioned by Judge Sakuth about the first time P20 had been kidnapped, he explained that he was walking on the street on his way to work or to buy something. When recounting the event, the witness said: “One was taken from the street, the ID would be taken from us as well as the phone. One was brought to the Yarmouk camp. On the other side, the Free Syrian Army or ISIS were located. They would shoot at the folk committees [the NDF]. We had to carry sandbags and stack them. Those who did not follow the orders were hurt or shot at.” On further questioning by the Judge, P20 recalled that shots fired hit the ground 1-2 meters away from him. Another 20 people were present as well, including two of his friends.

 The second time P20 was arrested was while he was playing football with friends. He was taken to a place close to Tadamon. Again, P20 and other people, who had been arrested, had to fill sandbags and stack them, there were no clashes during that time, he explained. P20 then mentioned that a person who looked like Ahmad H. hurt someone with a knife and threatened this person. This was left uncommented by the Judges.

P20 explained that the first arrest happened in Yarmouk, the second and third time in Tadamon and the fourth time, he and others were taken to Daf Ash-Shouk. Overall, P20 recounted having been arrested 6-7 times. The Judge asked P20 to clarify whether he had been taken and coerced to forced labor 6-7 times and kidnapped once. The witness confirmed and explained that he had been sitting in a car waiting for his friend who was getting a kebab. “Conscripts” came and surrounded the car, which was not located far from a kindergarten where “they” [the NDF] would hold people hostage. The people wanted his ID, P20 explained, and added that he was a bit drunk and pushed one of the NDF members, who then hit him with the rifle’s buttstock. The NDF members blindfolded P20 and his friend and took the two men with them in the back of the car. The NDF members asked P20 if he knew who they were, and he replied that they were from the National committee and the NDF. 

Then P20 added that “Ahmad H.” was always in “that kindergarten with his people.” The Judge asked the witness who he meant by that and P20 explained that during his police interrogation he was shown photos, and he had recognized that person in those photos. The witness added that he had seen videos of “this Ahmad H.” on YouTube. Upon this explanation, Judge Sakuth asked the witness whether he knew the Accused. The witness looked at Ahmad H. and said “No, this person I do not know. He was younger and had darker skin.” Then the Judge asked P20 which function the person who the witness had seen in Syria had. P20 recalled that this person [referring to the individual he called “Ahmad H.”] was always dressed in camouflage and treated people badly, he would hit them and shoot on the ground. This person in front of him [referring to Ahmad H. in the courtroom], P20 claimed not to know. The Judge then asked the witness whether the name “Amjad Y.” was known to him. P20 replied that he had heard it on the internet and that everyone was called “Abu Haider”. 

The Judge went back to the kidnapping and asked the witness for details. P20 explained that he was hit with a cable, he was questioned, and he was accused of planting bombs on cars. The kidnapping lasted for a week until P20’s father paid money, and he was released. 

The Judge then asked the witness whether the name “Abu Haider Trucks” meant something to the witness. P20 replied that this person had killed the people “in the video.” Judge Sakuth wanted to know where P20 had heard this and the witness replied, “from the videos on YouTube and the photos that were shown to me during the police questioning”. Judge von Freier showed the witness six photos and asked him whether he knew anyone in them. P20 explained that he saw one of the people who were depicted in photo 2 and 6 during forced labor. He added that the person in photo 1, is the one he had seen at the kindergarten. P20 recalled that this person had an office for himself. 

The Prosecution only wanted to know whether the people during the forced labor activity were carrying weapons, which the witness confirmed.

Defense Counsel Schaper then questioned P20. Counsel Schaper’s attitude towards the witness suggested that he was annoyed. He asked the witness how many videos he had seen. P20 replied: “One on the channel Orient on Air about the massacre.” He then added, he was looking for the video of the Tadamon massacre. P20 also saw videos of people talking about forced labor experiences. P20 recalled that he had seen that person 1 [from photo 1] had committed “these acts.” Counsel Schaper wanted to know whether this person was Ahmad H. P20 then replied, “I do not know, sometimes he is called that and sometimes Amjad Y. Counsel Schaper then wanted to know the details from channel “orient on air” about forced labor. P20 explained that people talked about experiences similar to his. The Counsel then asked the witness whether names were provided during the videos. P20 confirmed, saying they gave the name of “person 1 [from photo 1]. But the real name of the person was unclear, most people were called Abu Haider”. When P20 was asked whether he had seen a photo from Abu Haider Trucks somewhere, the witness replied that he had also seen it on the YouTube channel “orient.” 

In the midst of the questioning, the witness inquired if he could ask a question. Counsel Schaper denied harshly and went on to the next question. The Counsel asked why, at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), P20 had made the statement that his father had paid 40.000 Syrian pounds to buy him free from the hostage but was unable to name an exact figure today. The Counsel pointed out that he was annoyed but that it had nothing to do with the witness and asked him to simply answer the question. P20 replied that it had been a long time ago and that he was probably confused. 

The Counsel then wanted to know what happened during the kidnapping in the cellar and what the room looked like. The witness explained that he was detained with an elderly man whose fingernails were pulled out. P20 recalled that there had been a cover on the ground and the cellar was dirty, blood was smeared on the walls and on the floor. 

The Counsel then went on to ask the witness about his religious affiliation as a Sunni and noted that his father had apparently not been in agreement with P20 marrying a Sunni woman. P20 explained that while his father was Shia, his mother was Sunni. The Counsel further wanted to know why P20 never mentioned his wife when speaking about fleeing Syria. P20 explained that he did speak about her in 2016, but that they had long been separated.

 The Counsel then rolled his eyes and said, “I could ask more, but to be honest I am not interested, I do not need any further information.” P20 suggested that he could be shown other photos of the Accused and that perhaps he would be able to recognize him then. Judge Sakuth replied that that was not necessary and dismissed the witness.

The proceedings were adjourned at 2:50 PM.

 The next trial day will be on September 23, 2024, at 9 AM.
___________________________

For more information or to provide feedback, please contact SJAC at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to SJAC’s newsletter for updates on our work