Inside the Ahmad H. Trial #20: Final Defense Motions Rejected As Trial Nears Verdict

TRIAL OF AHMAD H.  

Hanseatic Higher Regional Court – Hamburg, Germany 

Trial Monitoring Summary #20

Hearing Dates: December 3 & 4, 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 20th trial monitoring report covers days 32 and 33 of the Ahmad H. trial in Hamburg, Germany. On the first day, the Judges and the Prosecution resumed the questioning of Ahmad H. He repeated earlier claims, recalling that he was injured before joining the National Defense Forces (NDF) and that he joined only for survival. He described his role as minor as he was guarding schools and clearing rubble. He denied accusations of forced labor, detainee abuse, or close ties to NDF leadership. The Defense filed two motions to summon his wife and stepdaughter to testify about his character and to dispute an alleged kidnapping incident.

On the second day, the Prosecution opposed both motions, citing the irrelevance of the wife’s testimony. The Court agreed, ruling the facts were either already proven or irrelevant and that the proposed testimonies would lack objectivity. The evidentiary phase was officially closed by the Presiding Judge, and closing arguments were scheduled: The Prosecution will provide its arguments on December 10, 2024, and the Defense on December 11, 2024.

 Day 32 – December 3, 2024

During today’s hearing, the Accused, Ahmad H., was subjected to further questioning by the Presiding Judge, the Defense Counsel, and the Prosecution.

At the outset, the Accused reiterated substantial portions of his prior testimony, recalling that he had remained in Syria with his parents after his siblings had left the country. He recounted being wounded by gunfire during an aerial bombardment while attempting to flee with his son, a period preceding his involvement with the National Defense Forces (NDF).

The Accused further testified that he was persuaded by his brother-in-law to join the NDF as a means of survival. In response to an inquiry by Judge Sakuth regarding his specific role within the NDF, the Accused testified that he had been responsible for clearing rubble from the streets using a small truck, and for guarding school premises to prevent unauthorized entry.

Judge Sakuth then confronted the Accused with diverse witness testimonies alleging that he had been observed manning checkpoints and compelling individuals into forced labor. Ahmad H. denied personally engaging in or ordering such conduct. He explained that while he may have accompanied others during such operations and issued instructions at times, he did not independently coerce anyone. He claimed that, to the contrary, he was trusted by locals and occasionally assisted individuals in fleeing.

With respect to his alleged association with [redacted name], the Accused claimed his role was limited to serving [redacted name] tea and coffee. H. added that he was subjected to abuse by an individual named [redacted name] due to the Accused's’ Sunni background, and that he could only perform his assigned duties under the influence of alcohol and Captagon.

The Presiding Judge confronted him with the testimony of witness P13, a former fellow inmate in the German prison, who testified that Ahmad H. had denied drug use, had beaten detainees, and had subsequently mocked them [for more details on P13’s testimony, please see Trial Report #8]. The Accused contended that this was a misunderstanding caused by his own poor German language skills.

Judge Sakuth then read aloud messages in which Ahmad H. had referred to himself as the "treasurer" of [redacted name]. The Accused denied this characterization, asserting that although he may have assisted [redacted name] in generating income, he did not manage his finances. He also disputed the implication of another message where he claimed to have held “power” in Syria, clarifying that he was referring to familial authority and homeownership, not political or military influence.

The Court proceeded to review testimony from witnesses P4, P15, P23, P16, and P9. Ahmad H. categorically denied the allegations contained therein and claimed not to recognize some of the witnesses. One testimony, from witness P21, alleged that he was kidnapped and only released after showing Ahmad H. a WhatsApp message from the daughter of the Accused, who had attended the same school. The Accused denied this incident, asserted he did not know the witness, and claimed that his daughter did not possess a mobile phone at the relevant time.

Judge Sakuth then presented the Accused with photographic evidence depicting him with a truck. Ahmad H. acknowledged that he was in the image but explained that he did not know the individual accompanying him, Amjad Y., until a later date. He explained that the “victory sign” he was displaying in the photo was a reaction to having successfully repaired the truck. When asked why he carried a Kalashnikov rifle, the Accused responded that it was commonplace at the time for individuals to be armed.

During questioning by the Prosecution, Ahmad H. was asked whether the name [redacted name] was familiar to him, in the context of him reportedly feeling isolated in Germany. The Accused declined to answer, arguing the matter was private. Prosecutor Grätsch replied, “I bet it is.”

***

[105- minutes - break]

***

Following a recess, the Defense Counsel questioned the Accused regarding how he was able to recognize two specific witnesses, including witness P3, who had allegedly received a laptop. The Accused responded that he was aware the witness had been affiliated with the intelligence agency “Al Mintaqa” [Note: translated as “the area”, another name for the Branch 227].

Finally, the Defense submitted two motions. The first motion requested the summoning of the Accused’s stepdaughter, currently residing in [redacted location] with the Accused’s wife, [redacted name], to testify regarding the alleged abduction of witness P21. The Defense argued her testimony would demonstrate that the incident did not occur as alleged. The second motion sought to have the Accused’s wife testify regarding his character and a separate incident in the shop "Shanghai," where the Accused is alleged to have stolen crystal plates, as per witness testimony.

Judge Sakuth instructed the Prosecution to present their position on the Defense motions during the following day’s session.

The proceedings were adjourned at 4:00 PM.

The next trial day will be on December 4, 2024, at 9:00 AM.

Day 33 – December 4, 2024

The session commenced with Prosecutor Grätsch delivering a formal statement rejecting the two evidentiary motions filed by the Defense during the previous day of proceedings. These motions requested that the court summon Ahmad H.’s spouse, [redacted name], and his stepdaughter, [redacted name], to testify as witnesses.

The Prosecution justified its rejection on procedural and substantive grounds. Firstly, it was argued that both individuals reside in [redacted location] and that the Defense failed to provide summonable addresses for either individual. It was further noted that efforts to locate the daughter’s address would likely be futile given her irregular immigration status in [redacted location] following the denial of her visa application.

Moreover, the Prosecution referred to Sect. 244 (2) and (3) of the German Code of Criminal Procedure, asserting that:

• The fact, which the Defense sought to establish through the proposed testimony is not relevant to the Court’s decision (Sect. 244(2) German Code of Criminal Procedure) – specifically, the question of whether Ahmad H. sustained injuries prior to his alleged involvement with the National Defense Forces (NDF)
• The fact has already been sufficiently proven (Sect. 244(3) German Code of Criminal Procedure) – referring to the already admitted testimonies by multiple witnesses confirming Ahmad H.’s participation in the NDF

In relation to the proposed testimony of the Accused’s wife, the Prosecution argued that such a statement would likely be characterized by subjective and potentially biased assessments of Ahmad H’s character. The Prosecution further alleged an intent on the part of the Accused to induce false testimony from his wife.

Prior to the mid-morning recess, the Presiding Judge read out a section of the Accused’s case file concerning the stepdaughter’s residence, affirming that she currently resides in [redacted location] and that her visa application was denied.

***

[105 - minutes - break]

 ***

While the recess was initially scheduled to conclude at 11:00 AM, it was extended until 1:00 PM. Following the break, the Presiding Judge announced the Senate’s decision to reject both Defense motions. Regarding the stepdaughter, the Court expressed its confidence in the reliability of the prior testimony of witness P21, whose demeanor and testimony were deemed credible and not susceptible to mistaken identity of the Accused in the context of the alleged kidnapping. Additionally, the close familial relationship between the stepdaughter and Ahmad H. was cited as grounds to question the objectivity of her prospective testimony. The Court concluded that her testimony would not materially contribute to the determination of guilt or innocence of the Accused.

Regarding the testimony of Ahmad H.’s wife, the Court relied upon Sect. 244, paragraphs 3 through 6 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure, finding the following grounds for rejecting the motions applicable:

• Sect. 244(3): the fact has already been proven
• Sect. 244(4): the proposed evidence is wholly unsuitable
• Sect. 244(5): the evidence is unobtainable
• Sect. 244(6): where exonerating evidence cannot be obtained, the assertion may be treated as if proven

The Court found that an objective and credible account on the part of Ahmad H.’s wife could not reasonably be expected.

Subsequently, the Presiding Judge declared the evidentiary phase of the trial concluded. It was announced that the Prosecution would deliver its closing arguments on December 10, 2024 at 9:00 AM, followed by the Defense’s closing arguments on December 11, 2024.

The session was adjourned at 1:20 PM.

The next trial day will be on December 10, 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