Inside the Ahmad H. Trial #21: Crimes, Claims, Credibility, and the Closing Arguments

TRIAL OF AHMAD H.  

Hanseatic Higher Regional Court – Hamburg, Germany 

Trial Monitoring Summary #21

Hearing Dates: December 10 & 11, 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 21^st trial monitoring report covers days 34 and 35 of the Ahmad H. trial in Hamburg, Germany. On the first day, the Defense filed a motion requesting the disclosure of the identities of anonymous witnesses P1, P2, and P3, arguing that recent political developments in Syria had eliminated the original risks. The Court firmly rejected the motion, citing unchanged legal grounds under Sect. 68 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure. A subsequent motion to re-summon expert Dr. Steinberg for an updated witness risk assessment was also denied. The Prosecution then delivered its closing statement, outlining Ahmad H.'s alleged involvement in crimes committed by the National Defense Forces (NDF), including torture, enslavement, and plundering. Citing extensive witness testimony, digital evidence, and the Accused’s own incriminating statements, the Prosecution requested a cumulative sentence of 11 years for crimes against humanity.

On the second day, the Defense presented its closing argument, portraying Ahmad H. as a non-political, low-ranking individual who acted out of survival rather than ideology. The Defense cited contradictions in witness testimonies, the continued use of protective measures they deemed outdated, and a double standard in the Court’s handling of psychological evidence favoring witnesses over the Accused. The Defense argued that many accusations stemmed from personal disputes or unreliable memories and maintained that Ahmad H. lacked the intent or authority to commit the alleged crimes. His attempted bribe and social media messages were framed as signs of naiveté rather than guilt. The Defense requested full acquittal and the termination of the detention order. Ahmad H. concurred without additional comment. The verdict was scheduled for December 18, 2024.

Day 34 – December 10, 2024

During today’s hearing, Defense Counsel Schaper submitted a motion requesting the disclosure of the identities of the anonymous witnesses designated as P1, P2, and P3. The motion was based on what the Defense claimed were changed circumstances due to recent political developments related to the fall of the former Syrian regime. Counsel Schaper contended that the grounds for anonymity no longer applied, as the perceived threat to the safety of the witnesses from regime affiliates had faded.

All three Judges appeared notably disapproving of the motion. In particular, Presiding Judge Sakuth remarked pointedly, “You are saying you already know how the situation in Syria is going to develop?” The Prosecution objected to the motion, emphasizing that the prevailing conditions in Syria remained volatile and that the developments cited by the Defense did not constitute a substantive alteration of the factual basis underlying the protective measures related to the witnesses’ identities. The Court adjourned for a recess to allow the Defense to finalize its motion. This recess was extended slightly due to technical issues relating to the malfunctioning cell lock of the Accused, which was, however, resolved promptly.

[30 - minutes - break]

Upon resumption of the proceedings, the Court rejected the motion, citing Sect. 68 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs witness protection. The Court said that the claimed changes in Syria’s political situation did not change the legal reasons for keeping the witnesses' identities anonymous. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Accused had in fact previously acknowledged being familiar with the identity of the anonymous witnesses.

Before the hearing of evidence was closed, the Defense announced its intention to file a second motion. The Prosecution objected, querying why an additional motion had not been presented earlier, prior to the break. The Prosecutor considered the timing of the motion as a potential attempt to delay the trial.

This second motion raised by the Defense sought the re-summoning of Dr. Steinberg to provide expert testimony regarding the current risk assessment for the anonymous witnesses. The Defense asserted that Dr. Steinberg could attest to the diminished risk of harm to the individuals concerned. The Prosecution opposed the motion, reiterating that the witnesses – at least two of whom were previously affiliated with the Syrian regime – remained under considerable risk due to prevailing power structures.

Judge Sakuth, skeptical of the Defense's position, rhetorically inquired whether Dr. Steinberg was expected to “look into a crystal ball.” Defense Counsel Moschref responded: “So are we to believe that the German legal system is protecting witnesses of a pro-government militia?” This remark prompted Prosecutor Grätsch to respond sternly, labeling the comment “nonsense talk and an impertinence.”

A recess was declared to allow the Senate to deliberate on the motion.

[20 - minutes - break]

Upon resumption, the Senate denied the Defense’s motion, holding that the safety of the witnesses could not, at present, be academically verified. Therefore, the continued application of Sect. 68 German Code of Criminal Procedure remained appropriate, as reaffirmed by Judge Sakuth.

Subsequently, the Prosecution delivered its closing statement, beginning with a reading by Prosecutor Sahm. This included a quotation from the Accused, stating: “(...) I served the fatherland with pride. (...) I miss [redacted name] and the boys. I was living like a king (...).”

The closing argument was organized into several key thematic sections. It began with an overview of the personal background of the Accused. This was followed by a discussion of the broader context of the Syrian “Civil War”. Next, attention was given to the Tadamon district and the related massacre that occurred there. Finally, the argument addressed the involvement of the Accused within the NDF.

This was followed by a presentation of detailed factual findings derived from witness testimony. Witness P4 recounted being abducted by members of the NDF and physically assaulted by Ahmad H., who slapped him. An anonymous male victim testified that he was beaten near a bakery by several NDF members, including Ahmad H., who allegedly hit the victim’s head against a curb. Witness P1 testified that he observed Ahmad H. order an assault, was himself struck by a vehicle driven by the Accused and witnessed additional acts of violence. The

[redacted name], one of whom, identified as witness P15, testified in court, reported being detained by Ahmad H. and forced to perform labor under duress. Similarly, [redacted name], P26, testified that he had been coerced into forced labor by the Accused. Witness P16, a vegetable vendor, testified that Ahmad H. repeatedly took goods from his stand without paying and later extorted him for 50,000 Syrian pounds. Witness P15 also testified to having seen Ahmad H. take medicine from a pharmacy without offering payment. Lastly, witness P14 described two incidents at the “Shanghai” store, where Ahmad H. allegedly took merchandise without paying, including items he had previously damaged himself.

The evidentiary basis presented in court included several key elements. First, there was a statement from the Accused in which he confirmed his affiliation with the NDF. In addition, the Prosecution submitted Facebook message exchanges as evidence, as well as records indicating that the Accused had attempted to flee from justice. Testimonies from multiple witnesses were also introduced, providing detailed accounts of the events in question. Furthermore, the Court was presented with a video recording relevant to the case, along with screenshots taken from the Accused’s mobile phone. Lastly, a recorded telephone call involving the Accused was included by the Prosecution as part of the overall body of evidence.

Prosecutor Grätsch then systematically addressed each witness referenced in the Accused's testimony. She argued that the Accused’s attempts to undermine witness credibility were unfounded and failed in reducing the strength or reliability of their testimonies.

In conclusion, the Prosecution charged Ahmad H. with multiple counts of crimes against humanity, war crimes against persons, and war crimes against property and other rights pursuant to Sect. 7, 8, and 9 of the German Code of Crimes Against International Law (VStGB), including:

• Torture
• Infliction of grievous bodily harm
• Enslavement
• Unlawful deprivation of liberty
• Plundering

Individual sentences were proposed for each count, ranging from 1 year and 8 months (for plunder) to 9 years (for aggravated bodily harm). The Prosecution characterized these as serial criminal offenses committed between 2012 and 2015. Citing the Accused’s persistent dishonesty and simulated incapacity to participate in proceedings, the Prosecution requested a cumulative sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment.

The proceedings were adjourned at 2:50 PM.

The next trial day will be on December 11, 2024, at 9:00 AM.

Day 35 – December 11, 2024

Today, the Defense delivered its closing argument, presented by Counsel Moschref. The argument opened with a characterization of the Accused, Ahmad H., as a non-political individual, a father, and a man who sought only to provide for his family while maintaining peaceful coexistence with individuals of different religious backgrounds. The Counsel contextualized the Accused’s circumstances within the broader chaos of the Syrian Civil War, arguing that the outbreak of conflict caused widespread disruption and loss of personal agency. In light of this, Counsel Moschref posed a rhetorical question concerning the true purpose of international criminal law, asking whether beyond punishment, its function should be to uncover the full scope of information and circumstances surrounding alleged crimes, implicitly referring to the Syrian conflict in its entirety.

Counsel Moschref further addressed conditions experienced by the Accused throughout the trial proceedings. At the onset of his detention, Ahmad H. was relocated to Hamburg, where he underwent an abrupt nicotine withdrawal. The Defense criticized the quality of interpretation services provided in the early days of the trial, noting a dialectical mismatch between Ahmad H. and the interpreter. The Defense also disputed the Prosecution’s claim that the Accused’s solitary confinement was self-inflicted, asserting instead that insufficient attention was paid to the psychological and physical consequences of such confinement, including the fact that the Accused was undergoing treatment for cancer and taking 18 different medications.

The Defense criticized a disparity in how psychological harm was assessed: while Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) claims made by witness P4 were readily discussed, despite the lack of trauma-specialized expertise, the psychiatric diagnosis concerning Ahmad H. was dismissed and only taken seriously after an external expert was consulted.

Counsel Moschref then characterized the case as fundamentally a “testimony versus testimony” matter, in contrast to the Prosecution’s assertion of objective clarity. He expressed concern regarding the Court’s decision to uphold the anonymity of P5’s sources, and claimed P5 to be an opposition activist and not a neutral researcher. In the Defense’s view, Ahmad H. was being prosecuted symbolically as a representative of the NDF, rather than for proven individual criminal conduct. Counsel Moschref also cited the testimony of a former asylum official, who suggested that asylum seekers often share similar stories [Note: implying the potential for coordinated or fabricated claims of witnesses that spoke out during the trial].

The Defense then turned to a detailed critique of the credibility of individual witnesses. Regarding witness P4, the Defense argued that his testimony was riddled with inconsistencies and raised doubts as to whether he was genuinely suffering from PTSD. Counsel Moschref also suggested that P4 and his wife had a closer association with [redacted name] than they had admitted during testimony. With respect to witness P1, the Defense noted that his descriptions lacked specificity, including an instance where he confused the brand of a mobile phone with that of a car allegedly involved in an incident. The Counsel further observed that P1 remained calm and composed throughout his testimony, except when his wife was mentioned, whom the Accused had allegedly once helped. The Defense proposed that jealousy could have influenced P1’s account. Turning to witness P20, the Defense claimed that the witness was likely motivated by a personal dispute with the Accused, specifically a conflict between Ahmad H. and P20's brother, leading him to fabricate allegations. In the case of witness P16, the Defense argued that the testimony he gave during his initial police interview had been distorted due to poor interpretation. In contrast, his in-court testimony should be considered more reliable, wherein he stated that he and the Accused were friends and that Ahmad H. had assisted him on several occasions. Witness P15 was described by the Defense as possibly having been affiliated with the NDF himself. Counsel Moschref noted that the witness was unable to provide a coherent account of the circumstances surrounding his brother’s arrest and appeared generally indifferent toward the event.

Finally, the Defense addressed witnesses P2 and P3, identifying them as brothers who were both allegedly involved with the NDF. The Defense asserted that P2 had likely participated in operations under the command of Amjad Y. at the front lines. According to the Counsel, P2 intentionally minimized his own role in the conflict while overstating that of the Accused. His ability to describe in detail the structure and funding of the NDF suggested, according to the Defense, that he had occupied a significant position within the organization.

Counsel Moschref maintained that Ahmad H. held a low-ranking position, lacked government ties as a Sunni, and was primarily motivated by survival. The Defense acknowledged the Accused’s attempted bribe of an interpreter for €500,000 as evidence not of guilt but of his naïveté, arguing that "everyone could see" that Ahmad H. was intellectually limited. The Defense further cited Ahmad H.'s illiteracy, history of early drug use, and boastful but unintelligent social media behavior as additional evidence of his lack of sophistication and true intent.

In conclusion, the Defense requested a full acquittal and the revocation of the pre-trial detention order. When offered the opportunity by the Presiding Judge to speak last, Ahmad H. simply said: “I agree with my Counsel.”

The Presiding Judge announced that the verdict will be delivered on December 18, 2024. The hearing previously scheduled for December 17, 2024, was canceled.

The proceedings were adjourned at 10:15 AM.

The next trial day will be on December 18, 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