Inside the Ahmad H. Trial #15: “A Dog Would Be Treated Better Than Me”

TRIAL OF AHMAD H.  

Hanseatic Higher Regional Court – Hamburg, Germany 

Trial Monitoring Summary #15

Hearing Dates: October 8 & 9, 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 15^th trial monitoring report details days 24 and 25 of the trial against Ahmad H. in Hamburg, Germany. The first day featured the testimony of new witness P23, who knew the Accused from their shared time in a German refugee facility. Presiding Judge Sakuth confronted P23 with his past police interview statements, including that Ahmad H. had lived with P23 for over a month in 2023 when H. spoke about being forced to work at a checkpoint in Syria to support his family. P23 confirmed that Ahmad H. mentioned having power in Syria but was reluctant to share details. The witness claimed not to remember having made these statements. Before the session terminated, Ahmad H. requested his clothes back, which P23 kept for him and the witness inquired about visiting the Accused. Presiding Judge Sakuth informed the witness that this required formal approval.

For the following day’s session, two Federal German Police officers were scheduled to testify, but the proceedings were impaired when Ahmad H. arrived late without his scarf, which he used as cervical collar, claiming severe neck pain. The Accused explained that the guards had denied him the scarf, which led to a dispute between the Judge, the Defense, and the prison guards over whether a collar was medically necessary. A doctor was consulted, and it was determined that no prescription existed, but Ahmad H. insisted he was not properly examined. Ahmad H. had an emotional breakdown, claiming he was treated worse than a dog.  Prosecutor Grätsch appeared skeptical, suggesting it was a performance, while Defense Counsel Moschref emphasized Ahmad H.’s long solitary confinement. Despite the Judge’s attempts to proceed with questioning, Ahmad H.’s panic attack worsened. The session was interrupted and later adjourned.

  Day 24 – October 8, 2024

 On this trial day, a new witness, [redacted name], P23, testified. When asked by the Judge, P23 claimed to be [redacted information] years old but according to Judge Sakuth his ID showed that he was [redacted information] years old. P23 asserted to know the Accused as they had lived in the same refugee facility. When asked by Judge Sakuth whether Ahmad H. had ever spoken about his time in Syria, P23 outlined how Ahmad H. told him that H. was from a place called [redacted location] and knew P23's family as well as P23 himself. However, the witness explained that at the time, P23 had been very young and thus did not remember the Accused. When the Judge asked P23 what Ahmad H. was doing at the time, the witness recounted that Ahmad H. “had a truck, and he worked with that.” 

As the witness seemed unwilling to clarify details, the Judge started confronting him with statements he had made during two police interviews. First, the Judge read out the witness’s statement claiming that Ahmad H. was "welcome" at P23’s place. This referred to the fact that Ahmad H. had lived with P23 for a month and 10 days in 2023, the witness explained. P23 then recounted how Ahmad H. had told him that H. was forced to choose sides during his time in Syria, how he had to provide for his family and thus felt pressured to work at a checkpoint. P23 also testified that Ahmad H. told him he helped people flee from the city district in which they had been detained. When the Judge asked which checkpoint the Accused referred to, P23 was not able to provide a specific name but recalled that it was "close to the street Nisrin.”

 Judge Sakuth then read out a section of the police interview in which the witness mentioned that Ahmad H. demonstrated a behavioral trait of getting nervous quickly and when he did, he talked a lot and claimed that he had power back in Syria. P23 confirmed. Judge Sakuth also asked the witness whether he remembered naming people during the police interview who Ahmad H. had worked with at the checkpoint, specifically "[redacted name]" and "[redacted name]". The Judge read out another name to the witness, “[redacted name]", who the witness remembered. P23 added that he was known as "[redacted name]" and his first name was "[redacted name]". P23 clarified that these individuals also lived in the same refugee facility as both P23 and Ahmad H. P23 recalled that they provoked Ahmad H., offended him and instigated a dispute. The Judge then read out a statement made by P23 during the police interview, in which the witness conveyed that Ahmad H. told him, these individuals would not have dared to make a noise in Syria because back then he had power. Again, P23 confirmed and added, "Yes, because he was responsible for the checkpoint." Judge Sakuth then inquired whether Ahmad H. told the witness what exactly he was doing at the checkpoint. P23 answered that the Accused said that he stopped people and vehicles at the checkpoint and searched them. P23 also clarified that the individuals named before, [redacted name], [redacted name] and [redacted name], told P23 that Ahmad H. engaged in bribery, forcing people passing by the checkpoints to pay. P23 added that Ahmad H. also explained to him that the regime was unfair but that one was forced to follow the regime, otherwise one would be killed.

 Judge Sakuth then showed P23 two photographs. The witness recognized his home, specifically the couch, the table, and chairs. The Judge described: "One can see bundles of money and watches..." The witness replied without hesitation: "I have never seen these things before." 

The Prosecution asked for the name under which P23 had known Ahmad H., and P23 clarified that it was "Abu Haider." The witness had only learned about the name "Abu Haider Trucks" later via a YouTube video. The Defense wanted to know whether the Accused had consumed alcohol and marijuana in 2016, which P23 could not answer with certainty. 

Before the witness was released, Ahmad H. told the Judge that he would like to receive the clothes he had left at P23's home as he has been wearing the same thing [pointing to his current clothing] for a year now. Defense Counsel Scharper gave the witness a business card, with no explanatory comment. The witness asked the Presiding Judge whether it was possible for him to visit Ahmad H. The Judge replied that he would need to submit a formal request. P23 also asked the Judge whether he was allowed to shake Ahmad H.'s hand, which the Judge denied. Both witness and Accused looked at each other and said "May God be with you" [as then translated by the interpreter].

 The proceedings were adjourned at 10:20 AM.

 The next trial day will be on October 9, 2024 at 9 AM.

 Day 25 – October 9, 2024

While the plan for today’s session was hearing the testimony of two police officers from the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), who interviewed several of the witnesses questioned in court, the day ended up unfolding unexpectedly.

 The session started delayed as the Accused was brought in late. He entered without his light blue scarf, which he used as cervical collar in previous session, and walked with his head bowed and bent forward. Ahmad H. immediately told the Judge that he was unable to hold up his head and that his neck was in pain. The Accused explained that he needed the collar and although he had asked for it, the prison guards denied the request. Counsel Moschref complained to the Presiding Judge, expressing incomprehension for the denial since H. was wearing the collar for most of the sessions. Even the Judge appeared confused and asserted that he had no objection to the Accused wearing his scarf. The Judge then turned to the guard sitting in the courtroom and asked him whether he could say anything about the situation. The guard explained that he heard about the situation. He shared that Ahmad H. was denied the scarf as there was no medical prescription for it and expressed his agreement. The session was then interrupted for one hour, so that the Accused could be seen by a doctor. The Judge sought to clarify whether the collar was needed from a medical viewpoint.

[60 - minutes - break]

 Upon return from the break, the Accused was sitting in the courtroom without a collar, bent forward, with the head bowed. Judge Sakuth explained that the doctor informed him that the Accused did not need a collar from a medical standpoint. Ahmad H. interrupted the Judge and claimed that he had not actually been examined by the doctor during the break. The Judge ignored H.’s claim but clarified that he understood that Ahmad H. felt more comfortable with his scarf. Judge Sakuth said that he was fine with the Accused using a towel to place it around his neck and that this towel could be procured after the lunch break. The Judge also asked the guard whether he was a problem if the Accused wore the towel during the court hearing but not inside the detention facility. Adamantly, the guard conveyed that for him personally, it was indeed a problem because the Accused did not have a prescription and suggested that Ahmad H. should just wear a normal scarf. Defense Counsel Moschref got involved arguing he did not understand what difference it would make if the Accused wore a scarf or a towel.

 In a crying voice, Ahmad H. explained that he was unable to hold up his neck and accused the Presiding Judge with the words: "You're treating a dog better than me." Evidently upset, Prosecutor Grätsch raised her voice and expressed that this behavior was becoming difficult. She sides with the Judge’s reasonable suggestion, adding that the Accused simply had to be patient for an hour and half until he received his towel. Visibly agitated, Ahmad H. cried out loudly: "Don't shout at me please, everyone's shouting at me. As if I was a dog. A dog would be treated better than me." With a shaking voice, he started crying, and his head sank deeper on the table. Judge Sakuth tried to calm him down, but Ahmad H. continued to cry loudly. Defense Counsel Schaper requested a five-minute break for the Accused to calm down, which was granted. Everyone stayed in the courtroom apart from the Judge. 

[5 - minutes - break]

During the break, Ahmad H. remained visibly upset and spoke to the interpreter and the Defense Counsels in private. Counsel Schaper replied audibly: "We are all aware that the conditions of detention are not ok." The Accused hyperventilated and kept repeating: "I'm scared to die, I can't take it anymore, I'm scared to die, I'm scared to die." Prosecutor Grätsch reacted coldly and expressed that she could not see why they [the Prosecution] needed to sit through this. Defense Counsel Moschref remarked that the Accused has been in solitary confinement for 11 months. Unimpressed, Prosecutor Grätsch noted: "You know exactly why he is there Mr. Moschref." During this discussion, Ahmad H. continued to cry and repeated his own last name "H., H., H., ..." He also expressed that he was feeling cold. When the Judge returned from the break and saw the Accused crying, he commented that the Court had heard accounts of witnesses who had endured horrible things and that what Ahmad H. was experiencing here in Court was not comparable at all. 

The Judge then attempted to conduct the questioning with the first BKA officer. The entire time, he had been present, witnessing the behavior of the Accused. However, the Judge was interrupted continuously because the Accused kept on repeating that he could not take it anymore and scared to die. Besides breathing heavily, Ahmad H. made noises as if he was about to vomit. The interpreter assisted the Accused. In a loud voice, he asked the guard, "Why are you not helping?" The clerk provided Ahmad H. with a bin to relieve himself and the session was interrupted until after lunch.  

[120 - minutes - break]

Upon returning from the lunch break, the guard on duty informed the public that today's session was discontinued, and the trial will be resumed in the coming week, on October 16, at 9 AM.

  The proceedings were adjourned at 1:00 PM.

 The next trial day will be on October 16, 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