Inside the Ahmad H. Trial #14: A Lucky Escape and a Fearful Testimony
SJAC's trial monitoring efforts have been suspended by the U.S. foreign aid freeze. This report was completed prior to the freeze. More information is available here
TRIAL OF AHMAD H.
Hanseatic Higher Regional Court – Hamburg, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #14
Hearing Dates: October 1 & 2, 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 14th trial monitoring report details days 22 and 23 of the trial against Ahmad H. in Hamburg, Germany, which involved the questioning of new anonymous witnesses. The witness on the first day, P21, was uncertain at first but then identified the Accused as “Abu Haider”, a person he recalled having arrested him once and who told the witness he was going to be killed. In an attempt to appeal to Abu Haider, P21 mentioned that he knew his daughter, as the witness recounted in court. According to P21, Abu Haider demanded the witness to show him a WhatsApp conversation with his daughter. After reviewing the messages, Abu Haider reportedly released the witness. Moreover, the Defense submitted a motion to appoint an expert from the Max Planck Institute for Ethnological Research to evaluate the current situation in Syria. The expert is expected to provide an assessment of the potential safety risks faced by the anonymous witnesses (P1, P2, P3) and their families in Syria should the witnesses' identities be disclosed.
On the second day, witness P22 testified that he had known Ahmad H. for 20 years, as the Accused lived in the same Syrian neighborhood as the witness. The Judges confronted the witness with statements he had made during a police interview. The witness had mentioned that people respected Ahmad H. and that he seemed to hold significant authority in determining who should be arrested at checkpoints. In court however, the witness explained that he did not remember making these statements about the Accused.
Day 22 – October 1, 2024
The session began with a delay as Judge Sakuth was stuck in traffic. At the start of the session, Defense Counsel Scharper filed a motion to commission an expert from the Max Planck Institute for Ethnological Research concerning the current situation in Syria. The expert should be tasked with providing an assessment of the concrete safety risk posed to the anonymous witnesses (P1, P2, P3) and their families in Syria if their identity would be revealed. The Presiding Judge acknowledged the motion without further comment.
The questioning of a new, anonymous witness followed (P21). The witness, [redacted information], wore an orange cap pulled down to cover his face. Judge Sakuth told him that he would like to see his face at least partly. P21 thus moved the cap slightly upwards. Presumably concerned, the witness immediately looked over to the Accused, who did not change his facial expression.
The Judge declared that according to Section 68 (3) German Code of Criminal Procedure, the witness was not obligated to provide personal identification information. Judge Sakuth then proceeded to ask the witness to recount what life was like when he lived in Damascus. P21 explained that he went to school and lived close to the [redacted information]. The witness described how life became more difficult after demonstrations had broken out and the Military Intelligence Services kidnapped and tortured children. The witness recalled details on three main checkpoints that were established: Kastana, Baraka and a third one [Note: The name of the third checkpoint was inaudible to the monitor.]. The Judge asked who had established these checkpoints. The witness recalled that the NDF did and specified that it was [redacted name], a former member of the regime.
The witness recounted having been kidnapped and compelled to fill bags of sand and transport them to the frontline as shields on many occasions. P21 added that he was compelled to work seven to eight hours without food or water and was insulted by the people overseeing the work. When asked by the Judge, P21 was not able to specify how many times he had been arrested but explained that over a period of three years, he was arrested around twenty times. The witness also remembered that he had been around 15 years old.
When asked by the Judge whether P21 knew the Accused, the witness said that his face was "not unknown" to the witness and that he believes to have seen the Accused before, back in Syria. The witness explained to the Judge that he was not sure whether it was the Accused but if it was the person he had in mind, then it was someone called Abu Haider and that he had a daughter who went to school with P21. The witness explained that this person [who he identified as Abu Haider], had arrested him as well as three other people at the Baraka checkpoint one time, and loaded them into a vehicle. When P21 asked Abu Haider where they were going, the latter said "Sharbaji" [note: it was unclear to the trial monitor, but it could be referring to the “Sharbaji” neighborhood in At-Tadamon] and "We are going to kill you." Upon this, P21 told Abu Haider that he knew his daughter. Abu Haider then forced P21 to show him a WhatsApp conversation with his daughter. After reading it, according to the witness, Abu Haider said "For the love of my daughter, I will let you go. Take care of my daughter at school." P21 explained that while he was let go, none of the other passengers were. He did not see any of them again.
P21 also remembered that before he left Syria in 2015, he had a conversation with Abu Haider's daughter, who had told him that she wanted to leave for Germany because her father was already there. When asked by the Judge what the daughter's name was, P21 responded: "Something like [redacted name] or [redacted name]?" The witness did not know further details about the family.
The Judge then asked P21 whether he remembered one specific event he had recounted at the asylum hearing. The witness immediately said, "Yes, I will never forget it, even after I die it will be in my head." The witness described an event where he, his younger brother and his cousin wanted to visit P21's uncle, who lived close to Baraka checkpoint. When they passed the checkpoint, their jackets were pulled over their heads by NDF members, they were beaten, their phones were taken, and they were told to move in a specific direction with their heads bent and their hands tied behind their backs. P21 demonstrated this scenario in court. When they reached a group of ten people, they were told to kneel. P21 did not want to kneel because he was scared that dogs would attack him. He had heard that this was being done to people. He recalled that they were then taken into a room of an unfinished house, in which a giant pot with a base made of firewood was located in the middle of the room. P21 remembered seeing blood and bones around the room and on the floor. He had heard rumors before that people were tortured and killed in this place and that the dead bodies would be cooked and given to the dogs to eat. The three boys were told to stand against the wall with their faces turned towards the wall. P21 remembered men telling them they would be killed with a sniper rifle. P21’s uncle then came to save the boys and told the NDF, "You know us, the boys were just coming to visit, they are family." The uncle had to persuade the NDF members for a significant amount of time until the boys were let go and told they should walk away by taking a specific route. P21 recalled telling the guards that he did not want to walk down that route because he did not know it. However, in reality, P21 explained to the Court that he said this because he was convinced that he and the other captives would have been taken to the pit close to a mosque. P21 had heard that people were shot there and fell forward into a pit. The witness also explained that after this event, his uncle was arrested and no one ever found out where he was. The witness further recounted that someone called "[redacted name]" had been in charge at the time of his uncle's arrest.
The Prosecution did not raise many questions. It asked the witness whether he had been injured during his arrest, which the witness denied. The Prosecution was also interested in whether P21 had witnessed someone dying during his arrest, which the witness also denied.
Subsequently, the Defense posed only few questions. However, the nature of the questions rendered the short questioning heated. Defense Counsel Moschref confronted the witness with the question why he omitted bringing his recollection concerning the pit forward during his asylum hearing. The Counsel was immediately interrupted by the Prosecution and Judge, who set the record straight that the witness only mentioned "fearing" the pit and not actually having "seen" it. Defense Counsel Moshref then asked directly, "So, you are saying that you were arrested several times by my client?". Again, the Judge interrupted telling the Counsel that this was incorrect since the witness testified that he believed the Accused looked like a person called Abu Haider but was in fact not sure.
The proceedings were adjourned at 11:35 AM.
The next trial day will be on October 2, 2024, at 9 AM.
Day 23 – October 2, 2024
On this short trial day, a new witness, P22, was questioned. Like P21, the [redacted information] years old witness was anonymized and accompanied by legal counsel Mr. Huschbeck.
In comparison to P21 who testified the day prior, P22 was not talkative, and the Judges engaged in several follow-up questions to receive more detailed answers. In Syria, P22 recounted, he worked as a food supplier, whereby he transported products across the city of Damascus, yet with a focus on Daf Ash-Shouk and At-Tadamon. P22 remembered when passing by checkpoints, he was always forced to either pay or hand over some of his products to the guards at the checkpoints. The witness explained that he was never arrested and compelled to undertake forced labor. Asked by the Judge who oversaw the checkpoints, P22 described that the men were dressed in military clothing, but he was not able to differentiate between official military and militia members.
When Judge Sakuth asked P22 if he knew the Accused, the witness said: "Mohammed? Yes!" The Judge followed up by clarifying whether the witness mentioned the name by which he knew the Accused.P22 quickly corrected himself and said: "Ah no, Ahmad! Mohammed and Ahmad are basically the same for us." The witness added that he had known Ahmad H., who had lived in the same neighborhood, for 20 years. When the witness moved from the neighborhood, he no longer saw Ahmad as frequently.
Judge Sakuth asked the witness what Ahmad H. was doing at the time. P22 said that he did not know, but guessed: "Perhaps he was a soldier, but I don't know." The Judge then started reading out statements made by the witness during his police interview. In one of these statements, P22 claimed that Ahmad H. worked at a checkpoint. The witness corrected himself and explained that he had seen Ahmad H. standing close to a checkpoint but had not seen him working there. Moreover, according to the Judge, during his police interview, P22 further stated that "people respected him [Ahmad H.]." In addition, the witness told the police that "when he appeared somewhere, people saluted him." Upon the Judge’s question for clarification, P22 explained that he meant that Ahmad H. was "greeted" and not "saluted" [in the military sense of the word].
During the police interview, the witness had also noted that "it appeared as if he [Ahmad H.] was an important person" and that Ahmad H. "gave orders on who should be arrested." However, when the Judges asked P22 whether he could remember saying these things, the witness replied that Ahmad H. did not give orders and that he could not remember saying that.
Following this, the Judge decided to formally record the witness’s testimony that Ahmad H. did not give orders on who should be arrested to the official court transcript. Before doing so, the Judge sought to clarify whether the witness was firm on today’s testimony. Defense Counsel Scharper intervened and objected to the Judge’s question, arguing that P22 had already answered. As a result, the Judge got furious and shouted at the Counsel, "Do not raise these objections if you are not familiar with the subject! Section 253 German Code of Criminal Procedure provides that reading out the witness's statement is permitted. You cannot object to that, my goodness!" The entire court room fell silent.
P22's Counsel then requested a brief interruption to discuss with his client and the interpreter whether P22 understood the Judge’s question correctly. The break was granted.
[5 - minutes - break]
After the break, the Counsel explained that P22 intended to say that he cannot remember making any of the statements read out to him by the Judges, emphasizing that he might have made the statements, but he does not remember it.
Judge Sakuth then moved on to ask P22 whether he ever had personal contact with Ahmad H. The witness recalled that Ahmad H. helped him once to get a signature on a sales permit for P22 to sell his house. P22 was too scared to ask for the signature himself, and did not want to enter the checkpoint. The Judge then inquired why P22 had specifically asked for Ahmad H.'s help. P22 explained it with the simple fact that they were neighbors once.
After the Judge finished his questioning, the Prosecution briefly took over. Prosecutor Grätsch wanted to know whether Ahmad H. belonged to the people leading the checkpoints. The witness replied that he does not know and specified that he has never seen Ahmad H. doing anything to anyone. The Prosecutor then inquired whether P22 was scared to testify in court today, to which P22 answered: "Of course, all witnesses are scared but I am still testifying to what I remember."
The questioning by the Defense Counsel followed. Counsel Moschref asked the witness whether he knew the German word "salutieren" [German for “salute”]. P22 denied. Counsel Moschref then asked whether P22 feared the Accused, which P22 also denied. Moschref then implied that the witness must fear something since he appeared with legal representation. Judge Sakuth interrupted and clarified that the witness asked for a legal counsel because he did not want the public to know about his testimony and remarked that this did not necessarily mean that P22 feared the Accused. P22 expressed that he was scared of the [current Syrian] regime. After the Defense finished the questioning, the witness was dismissed.
Before the session was concluded, Judge Sakuth announced that on 9th October, BKA officer, Mr. Göttelmann [name spelled as heard], P25, who had interviewed P22 at the time, will testify. The Defense noted that it wanted to question the BKA officer about all the witnesses involved in this trial he interviewed. The Judge responded that this would be important for Mr. Göttelmann to know in advance, so he can prepare for the testimony.
Lastly, the Prosecution read out its response to the Defense's motion to commission an expert on the current situation in Syria and the related safety risk of revealing the identity of witnesses. The Prosecution argued that there was no necessity for the evaluation of the situation in Syria by an expert since the Defense's first motion to reveal the witnesses' identity was already rejected and there was no change in the state of affairs since then.
The proceedings were adjourned at 11:30 AM.
The next trial day will be on October 8, 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