Inside the Ahmad H. Trial #17: Key Witness Resummoned as Trial Evidence Concludes

TRIAL OF AHMAD H.  

Hanseatic Higher Regional Court – Hamburg, Germany 

Trial Monitoring Summary #17

Hearing Date: October 30, 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 17th trial monitoring report covers day 27 of the trial against Ahmad H. in Hamburg, Germany. The final witness, P3, was heard again to complete the questioning by the Defense, confirming that P2 discovered the incriminating videos in late 2018 or early 2019, a soldier, who found them on a laptop linked to high-ranking militia figures. Counsel Moschref questioned P3 about P2’s affiliations, political stance, and the delayed discovery of the videos. After P3’s dismissal, the Court rejected several Defense motions, closed the evidence phase, and approved a request to cancel upcoming trial days so the Accused could prepare his closing statement.

 Day 27 – October 30, 2024

The final witness, P3, who had previously testified [for the details of the testimony, see Trial Report #6], was heard today. P3, an anonymized individual, initially discovered the incriminating videos and passed them on to witness P5. As before, P3 appeared with concealed identity — wearing a wig and glasses — and was accompanied by a new counsel, Mr. Orth [spelled as heard by the monitor], along with officers from the witness protection service.

P3 was resummoned because the Defense was unable to complete its questioning. Defense Counsel Moschref began by asking when P3 had first seen the videos. P3 replied that it was around late 2018 or early 2019. According to his account, Amjad Y. had given a laptop to P2 for repairs. P2 recalled that he took the laptop home, discovered the videos, and then showed them to P3. P3 described P2, who was serving in the Syrian army at the time, as a “normal soldier.”

Counsel Moschref probed further into P2’s background and his connections, asking P3 whether P2 had any links to "[redacted name]." P3 replied that [redacted name] was P2’s direct superior and held control over the Tadamon التضامن district. The Counsel then inquired whether Amjad Y. and [redacted name] were high-ranking militia members. P3 responded that Amjad Y. was a “sergeant major” and the right-hand man of [redacted name], then a colonel in Branch 227. [Redacted name] was the head of a National Defense Forces (NDF) branch. The NDF leader in Tadamon was identified as [redacted name], while the Daf Ash-Shouk دف الشوك branch was led by someone known as “Abu Haider,” though it was unclear which individual the witness referred to.

Counsel Moschref then questioned how P2, a relatively low-ranking soldier, had been entrusted with a laptop belonging to such prominent individuals. P3 speculated that this might have been due to shared religious affiliation and the fact that both Amjad Y. and [redacted name] knew where P2 and P3 lived. Additionally, [redacted name] was reportedly responsible for a checkpoint located on the same street where P3 resided.

The Counsel expressed confusion over the timeline — why were the videos, which documented crimes committed in 2013, discovered in 2018? P3 explained that civilians had been barred from accessing certain areas referred to as "the second line." These included abandoned houses which the NDF had seized and controlled.

***

[10 - minutes - break]

 ***

Following a short break, Counsel Moschref shifted focus to P2’s political affiliations, asking if he was part of the Opposition. P3 recalled that P2 had never actively opposed the regime or formally joined the Opposition but sympathized entirely with their ideas.

At various points, Counsel Moschref repeated questions that had already been covered during P3’s earlier testimony. The Judge noted this repetition. In response, Moschref posed more specific questions — particularly about Ahmad H. — asking if P3 had known him prior to recognizing him in the videos. P3 said he did not know Ahmad H. personally but saw him multiple times at Tadamon checkpoints, where the Accused had allegedly taken individuals for forced labor.

After the witness was dismissed, the Judge read corrections regarding the translations of several photo captions, which remained unclear to the public, as the images were not displayed. Subsequently, another batch of photos was circulated among the parties, and not visible to the public. The captions were read out loud and included Facebook conversations involving the Accused as well as images of his face and tattoos.

Finally, the Judge announced the rejection of several motions filed by the Defense. These included: A request for a psychological evaluation of witness P4; inspection of asylum protocols for anonymized witnesses and witnesses P4, P7, P10, and P15; and court hearings for individuals interviewed during asylum procedures. The Judge explained that the rejection of the disclosure of the asylum protocols for these witnesses was based on the fact that they were either unable to contribute meaningfully to the truth-finding process, were irrelevant to the case due to lack of personal knowledge of the Accused or required protection.

Toward the end of the session, the Defense mentioned that [redacted name], P5, agreed to submit the remaining videos in her possession, as the current list appeared incomplete. However, both the Judges and the Prosecution remarked they did not receive anything from the witness. The Judge then declared that the Senate’s taking of evidence phase has officially concluded. The Prosecution raised no objections.

Counsel Moschref requested that the next two trial days be canceled to allow time for consultations with the Accused, who is preparing a written statement in response to the charges. Judge Sakuth approved the request.

The proceedings were adjourned at 1:50 PM.

The next trial day will be on November 12, 2024, at 9:00 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