Inside the Ahmad H. Trial #5: The First Victim Account
Hanseatic Higher Regional Court – Hamburg, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #5
Hearing Date: June 24, 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 5th trial monitoring report details day 8 of the trial of Ahmad H. in Hamburg, Germany. On this day the first survivor witness was questioned. He recounted to have been kidnapped by Ahmad H. on three different occasions within the period from 2012-2014. The Accused did not recognize the witness.
Day 8 – June 24, 2024
The first survivor witness, P1 [redacted information] was questioned today. He was anonymized, under witness protection and represented by a lawyer.
The witness was questioned by the Judge as to how he knew the Accused. The witness testified to have been kidnapped by the Accused a total of three times and compelled to do forced labor. Ahmad H. did not recognize the witness which became clear when Defense Counsel Moschref informed Counsel Schaper about this during the break.
The witness recounted being kidnapped the first time in 2012 when Ahmad H. chased him with a car and took his ID. He was forced to transport sandbags along with other 30 civilians that were kidnapped to undertake forced labor. The witness recounted having heard people being beaten and screaming and he had seen dead bodies being brought in. He was held from morning until night and then let go. The reasoning behind the kidnapping, as the witness mentioned, was that the witness did not like the security staff, didn't stop at the first checkpoint and was thus being punished for it.
P1 recalled being kidnapped the second time in 2014, again by the Accused. During this event, the witness described that he was riding around town on his bike. The Accused stopped him and told P1, “I'll show you what work is.” P1 then recalled being taken to a factory at the end of Tadamon Street with 12 other individuals, where their task was to transport sandbags. The sandbags were supposed to be put up as shields to protect windows and balconies. While P1 and the other 12 individuals were working, snipers were shooting over their heads, P1 recalled. P1 further explained that the Accused was almost shot during this event, but he did not want the civilians to stop working. The witness testified that they were forced to work 7-8 hours carrying sandbags.
The third kidnapping took place in 2015. P1 recounted that this time he was driving his car. The kidnappers stopped him and drove him to a road on the frontline. Again, the witness and others who had been kidnapped had to work under fire by snipers, one person was in fact hit by a sniper.
The witness told the Court that he knew Ahmad H. under the name “Abu Haider Trucks أبو حيدر تركس”. Before issuing a break, P1 was then asked by the Judge whether he knew anything about him. The witness remembered that people were saying that he was married to an Alawite woman.
***
[60- minutes - break]
***
Upon return from the break, the questioning by the Prosecution followed. The Prosecutor wanted to know whether P1 suffered any health problems after the second arrest. P1 answered that he had psychological issues and was afraid to go out on the street or drive to work. He recounted taking shortcuts to avoid encountering the Accused.
The Prosecution was also interested in the knowledge the witness might have about [redacted name] and his crew. P1 explained that he had heard that [redacted name] was the leader of an armed group [see trial day 12 for more details on the armed group] during the conflict and that he was dismissed from the army for having had sex with a soldier.
The Defense then questioned the witness about details regarding the situation in which he was hit by a vehicle during this kidnapping. The Defense asked very specific questions such as the street P1 had been on, the details of the car, how fast the car was driving exactly, with which part of the car he was hit, his exact injuries, whether the street was straight or curved. Again, the Defense confronted the witness with details of statements made during the police questioning that did not perfectly match up with what the witness was saying in court. However, there were minor discrepancies.
The Defense Counsel asked P1 whether he remembered stating in the police questioning that Abu Haider Trucks had a lip injury and couldn't close his mouth properly. The witness remembered that Ahmad H. couldn't close his eye properly, not his mouth. The Defense then instigated a discussion with the interpreter whether one could confuse the words mouth and eye in Arabic. The interpreter acknowledged that this cannot be ruled out with certainty.
The Defense also asked P1 about his statements made during the asylum hearing and whether he reported the kidnapping incidents in the asylum proceedings as well. P1 recalled that he did and when asked by the Defense whether he named Ahmad H., P1 replied that he did not know the name of the Accused but stated his nickname “Abu Haider Trucks” during the asylum hearing.
Finally, the Defense wanted to know more about P1’s and his wife’s itinerary to Europe. The witness did not want to answer, which sparked discussions about whether he was obliged to testify about his wife’s escape route and the family circumstances. The Judge explained that the witness does not have to testify on these points due to witness protection reasons.
The Defense Counsel requested the asylum files be obtained to effectively defend Ahmad H. According to the request, the information from the asylum interview and the police questioning would need to be compared.
The Defense’s motion to obtain the transcript of the asylum files for the different witnesses was also rejected. Moreover, the motion of the Defense to recuse the Judge was rejected by the Senate.
However, the Defense’s motion to receive a transcript and translation of the video interviews that P5 undertook for her research, was granted. Additionally, the [redacted name] submitted a confirmation of P5’s title and working position at the Institute to the Court.
The proceedings were adjourned at 3:45 PM.
The next trial day will be on July 2, 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