Inside the Ahmad H. Trial #19: Simulating Symptoms?
TRIAL OF AHMAD H.
Hanseatic Higher Regional Court – Hamburg, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #19
Hearing Dates: November 26 & 27, 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 19th trial monitoring report covers days 30 and 31 of the Ahmad H. trial in Hamburg, Germany. The first day began with a forensic evaluation of Ahmad H.’s behavior by expert psychologist Dr. Christoph Lenk, who conducted cognitive tests and concluded that H.’s inconsistent responses suggested simulated behavior rather than a psychological disorder. Despite the Defense’s claims of mitigating factors such as solitary confinement and cancer, Dr. Lenk found no clinical signs of trauma or depression. The day was marked by delays, tensions between parties, and the rejection of a vague Defense motion on substance use. Closing arguments were scheduled for December 10 & 11, 2024.
On the second day, the Court rejected a Defense motion to appoint an expert on the Accused’s substance use from 2012 to 2015, citing lack of specificity and insufficient evidence. Judge Sakuth issued a procedural notice under Section 265 German Code of Criminal Procedure, announcing changes to the legal classification of several charges, including the dropping of charges related to witnesses P1 and P15, and reclassifying a robbery charge involving P16 as extortion with use of force or threat of force. The Prosecution withdrew additional charges tied to witnesses P4, P15, and P16. Ahmad H. agreed to testify, recounting a difficult upbringing, military service, substance abuse, and migration to Germany. When questioned further, H. cited physical discomfort and requested to postpone the testimony. Judge Sakuth accepted but warned that failure to testify at the next hearing would result in the Prosecution proceeding to its closing argument.
Day 30 – November 26, 2024
Upon entering the courtroom, the Accused, Ahmad H., appeared physically frail, walking with a forward-leaning posture, smiling, and speaking to himself. Presiding Judge Sakuth inquired as to the Accused’s present state of health. In response, H. stated that a physician had informed him he would be reunited with his wife and children, and that his head would be x-rayed. Judge Sakuth confirmed the accuracy of the x-ray reference but sought to determine whether the Accused could recall the events of the previous hearing, particularly the reading of his prior testimony by the Defense [see Trial Report #18]. H. did not respond to the question, instead voiced unrelated complaints regarding his financial situation and the absence of cigarettes. Multiple attempts by the Judge to elicit a relevant response proved unsuccessful, as the Accused persistently digressed from the matter at hand.
Consequently, Judge Sakuth had requested a forensic assessment from Dr. Christoph Lenk, a psychiatrist and psychotherapist. Upon entering the courtroom, although appointed as an independent expert, Dr. Lenk took his seat on the side of the Prosecution. When asked by the Judge how long his assessment would take, Dr. Lenk estimated that he required approximately two hours to conduct the necessary evaluation of the Accused. The hearing was thus interrupted for the examination.
[135 - minutes - break]
***
Following the interruption, Dr. Lenk first briefly presented his professional background, then reported on the cognitive tests conducted with the Accused. One such test involved memorizing and recalling 50 visual stimuli (images), the so-called Recognition Memory Test [Note: The test is commonly used in forensic evaluations to assess visual memory and identify brain injury, malingering, or cognitive impairments relevant to fitness to stand trial, criminal responsibility, or mental disability claims]. In the first round, H. recalled 19 images — an outcome below the statistical probability of random recall. In a subsequent round, recall diminished to only 10 images. Notably, an image of a sewing machine was initially recognized by the Accused, who remarked that his mother possessed one. However, in later testing rounds, he failed to recall this image. Dr. Lenk concluded that the inconsistencies in memory performance and manner of response were not psychologically explainable.
Dr. Lenk then conducted a second assessment, the Benton Visual Retention Test [Note: This test is a neuropsychological test used in clinical settings to assess visual memory, perception, and construction skills, aiding in the diagnosis of brain injuries, dementia, learning disabilities, and other cognitive disorders]. The Accused was shown geometric figures for 20 seconds and asked to recognize them among templates. Ahmad H. asserted that all figures appeared identical. Dr. Lenk classified this response pattern as “non-authentic response behavior,” concluding that no clinical condition could be identified to render the Accused unfit for trial.
Dr. Lenk also referred to an observation by the detention psychologist, Dr. Appel, who had noted a pattern of "aggravation" — a term indicating the exaggeration of real symptoms. Dr. Lenk, however, determined that the Accused was exhibiting behavior consistent with "simulation," i.e., the fabrication of symptoms. Upon inquiry by the Court as to whether this constituted a defense tactic, Dr. Lenk requested clarification regarding the procedural stage of the trial and the Accused’s prior demeanor. Having received this information, Dr. Lenk explained that simulated behavior is typically goal-oriented and may arise as a strategic response when acquittal appears unlikely.
Following these findings, the Defense requested a break to confer with the Accused. The Presiding Judge granted a break of 15 minutes.
***
[35 - minutes - break]
***
With a delay and upon resumption, the Defense questioned Dr. Lenk and presented mitigating circumstances, including prolonged solitary confinement and a cancer diagnosis, querying whether these factors might account for the Accused’s presentation. Dr. Lenk acknowledged the burdensome nature of the Accused’s situation but reaffirmed that no symptoms consistent with trauma-related, panic, or major depressive disorders had been identified during his evaluation.
Judge Sakuth then formally released Dr. Lenk from his duties as an expert witness and announced a one-hour break.
***
[120 - minutes - break]
***
Due to extended consultations between the Defense and the Accused, the break exceeded the scheduled duration, which prompted visible dissatisfaction in Prosecutor Sahm, who expressed her frustration with Defense Counsel Moschref. Rhetorically, Moschref asked: “Do you want to switch roles? I don’t think so.” He subsequently issued an apology for this expression of thought.
Judge Sakuth proceeded to inform H. of the conclusions presented by Dr. Lenk and asked whether he was prepared to respond to questions regarding his prior testimony. The Defense replied on the Accused’s behalf stating that he will not respond to any further questions, will not provide additional testimony, and that no further motions will be submitted by the Defense.
Subsequently, Prosecutor Grätsch read the Prosecution’s formal rejection of a Defense motion requesting expert analysis on the potential influence of substance use on H.’s behavior. The motion was criticized by the Prosecution on the grounds of being overly vague and lacking evidentiary support, particularly given the absence of testimony indicating that the Accused had been under the influence of substances other than cannabis and hashish.
Judge Sakuth announced that the Court would deliver its decision on the Defense’s motion on the following day. He further instructed the Prosecution to prepare its closing argument for December 10, 2024, with the Defense to follow on December 11, 2024. He also noted that, depending on the progress of the upcoming session, subsequent hearing days might be canceled.
The proceedings were adjourned at 4:00 PM.
The next trial day will be on November 27, 2024, at 9:00 AM.
Day 31 – November 27, 2024
Upon entering the courtroom, the Accused spoke quietly to himself and smiled. The content of his speech was not translated by the court interpreter.
Presiding Judge Sakuth delivered the Court's ruling on the Defense motion seeking to appoint an expert to assess H.’s history of drug and alcohol consumption with respect to his criminal culpability during the period from 2012 to 2015. The motion was rejected. The Court largely aligned its reasoning with the Prosecution’s prior arguments: the motion lacked specificity, failed to establish a concrete link between substance use and the Accused’s conduct, and relied on general characterizations — such as witnesses describing the Accused as “loud and aggressive” — which do not inherently suggest intoxication. Furthermore, intercepted communications, including Facebook messages and recorded telephone calls, indicated H.'s ideological support for the National Defense Forces (NDF) and his voluntary participation in their activities.
Judge Sakuth then proceeded to issue a procedural notice pursuant to Sect. 265 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure, informing the parties of adjustments to the legal classification of several charges in the indictment [Note: The announcement was read rapidly and unclearly, prompting difficulty in comprehension]. According to the available information:
- In relation to witness P1, the charges of torture, slavery, and unlawful deprivation of liberty will not be pursued
- The charge associated with witness P15 is to be dropped due to lack of direct eyewitness evidence
- For witness P16, the relevant charge has been reclassified as “extortion with use of force or threat of force” [Sect. 255 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB)] instead of “robbery” [Sect. 249 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB)]
Following this, the Prosecution, represented by Prosecutor Grätsch, announced the withdrawal of several charges, specifically:
- Charges connected to the testimony of witness P4
- Robbery charges related to P15
- Charges related to P16, on the basis that the criminal acts in question were perpetrated by other individuals
Judge Sakuth subsequently read out excerpts from the Accused’s Federal Central Criminal Register and invited Ahmad H. to respond to questions concerning his personal background. The Defense requested a break for consultation.
***
[45 - minutes - break]
***
Upon reconvening, H. indicated his willingness to testify, albeit noting that he was feeling physically unwell.
The Accused proceeded to provide a personal history, including the separation of his parents during early childhood and being raised by his grandmother. He described a difficult upbringing involving physical abuse by his uncle, who also introduced him to hashish. H. testified that he left formal education after the fifth grade and subsequently worked in various jobs, including as a blacksmith, mechanic, and in the tourism sector. He served in the military for approximately two and a half years. The Accused reported having been married four times but could not recall all the details regarding the duration of these marriages or the names of all his spouses when asked by Judge Sakuth. He has one biological son, [redacted name], with his current wife [redacted name], whose three children from a prior marriage he also raised.
Regarding the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, H. recalled that most of his family fled abroad, while he remained behind to care for his parents and his kidnapped brother’s children. He reported severe material hardship during the war, frequent substance abuse, and a period of suicidal ideation, which he illustrated by exposing self-inflicted scars to the Court. Following the death of his parents, he fled Syria for Turkey, where he was hospitalized due to substance dependence. After a period of recovery, he migrated to Germany, settling initially in [redacted location] and later in [redacted location].
Ahmad H. also described his association with a man known as [redacted name], a participant in informal Hawala banking networks. [Redacted name] allegedly loaned him €10,000 to facilitate his journey to Germany. The Accused explained that he stored large sums of money for him until two months prior to his arrest, at which point he ended the working relationship and committed to repaying an outstanding debt of €6,400.
During this testimony, the Accused complained of a headache and memory difficulties, prompting a break.
***
[60 - minutes - break]
***
Upon resumption, Judge Sakuth attempted to resume the questioning concerning the period 2012–2015. However, the Accused reiterated his physical inability to continue, while expressing respect for the Court and willingness to testify at a later stage. Judge Sakuth reluctantly accepted the objection but advised the Accused that, should he again be unwilling to testify at the next hearing, the Prosecution will proceed directly to its closing argument.
The proceedings were adjourned at 1:15 PM.
The next trial day will be on December 3, 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