Inside the Ahmad H. Trial #6: The Open Book and the Puzzle – Two Contrasting witnesses
Hanseatic Higher Regional Court – Hamburg, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #6
Hearing Dates: July 2 & 3, 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 6th trial monitoring report details days 9 and 10 of the trial of Ahmad H. in Hamburg, Germany. During this week two new witnesses appeared in court.
The first witness, P4, a tiler from At-Tadamon, was not under witness protection and very open about his experiences in the neighborhood of At-Tadamon. These experiences included three different kidnapping events of which one was related to the Accused, and the witness was able to identify him. The witness testified how, verbally aggressively, Ahmad H. had made him realize that he would never receive the money he was owed for a tiling job he had undertaken for a former head of the NDF, [redacted name].
The questioning of the witness was interrupted early and postponed in favor of a second witness due to protection measures. In addition, P4 current psychotherapist will be testifying in court at a later stage during the trial.
The second witness, P3, was anonymized and accompanied by legal counsel. During the questioning it became clear that this witness had passed on the videos related to the At-Tadamon massacre, to witness P5, which he apparently discovered together with P2.
Day 9 – July 2, 2024
Two new witnesses testified in court today. During the morning session the first witness, P4, appeared. He was not under witness protection nor represented by a lawyer. The three Judges questioned him throughout the morning. According to the witness, he was a professional tiler, born in [redacted location]. When the conflict started, he moved to the refugee camp Al-Yarmouk and then to At-Tadamon, where he stayed from 2012to 2013. At the end of 2013, he fled to Lebanon and in 2015, continued to Germany. He recounted that although he was born in [redacted location] his family is from [redacted location] There was a specific hate [by the regime] against people from that region, he recalled.
P4 explained how undertook a tiling job for [redacted name] but was never compensated when the job was done. During this job, he explained, he met Ahmad H.
The witness recounted that he was kidnapped several times. The first time, P4 was kidnapped for two days and according to him, it had the objective to intimidate him into forgetting about the money [redacted name] owed him. The second time, P4 recounted, he was kidnapped by the NDF.
First, the witness claimed to have been kidnapped twice, later he said three times. Confusion thus arose during the witness’s description of the kidnapping events, as to how many times he was in fact kidnapped and what exactly happened during each event. The Judges and Prosecutors were especially unclear about in which kidnapping incident the witness encountered Ahmad H. This confusion arose first and foremost, due to a discrepancy between what the witness told in court during this session and what he had stated during police questioning, as well as his asylum hearing. In contrast to the witnesses under witness protection, the protocols of the asylum hearing of P4 were incorporated into the trial.
When the Prosecution took over the questioning of the witness, it attempted to untangle the events by asking P4 again to recount each kidnapping incident individually and in detail.
P4 then explained that during kidnapping event number 1 he was kidnapped for two days. He recalled that he was told to appear at a so-called “security office”, from where he was then taken to a former kindergarten which had been turned into a prison, and where he was tortured. He said that he was beaten and slapped in the face. During the second kidnapping event, the witness recounted, he was kidnapped from his home by six or seven “civil servants” who took him to another prison located relatively close to the former kindergarten he had been taken to during the first kidnapping. During the third kidnapping event, the witness explained, he was kidnapped from the Baraka checkpoint. He was working as a taxi driver that day and was stopped by NDF members at the checkpoint. His ID was taken from him, he was blindfolded and loaded into a vehicle. The witness was then taken to another torture facility and held there for 29 days.
The Prosecution then asked P4 to specify where he had encountered Ahmad H. The witness recalled having seen Ahmad H. close to the Baraka checkpoint, driving around on an excavator and having seen him around the “security office”. However, the witness recounted having seen Ahmad H. in only one of the kidnapping incidents, namely the third one, during which he was held for 29 days. The witness explained that during this event, Ahmad H. had recognizedP4, slapped him in the face and said: “You wanted [redacted name] money, forget it.”
The witness described Ahmad H. as loud, aggressive and terrifying, which aligned with the testimony of two other witnesses.
The Prosecution then started asking the witness how he felt emotionally when recounting these events. The witness said it was hard for him but that he could still testify about the events. P4 further explained that currently received psychiatric treatment. The Prosecution asked the witness whether he would allow his doctors to be released from their duty of confidentiality and testify in court. The witness was open about this and agreed.
The lunch break interrupted the questioning of P4, and the rest of the testimony was postponed. The Judge explained that due to the witness protection measures organized for questioning the second witness, it was important that this witness would be prioritized.
***
[60- minutes - break]
***
The second witness of the day, ([redacted information]), P3, was wearing a wig and glasses and entered the courtroom accompanied by personnel from the witness protection team. When asked by the Judge, the witness explained that he was born in [redacted location] and had studied business administration.
The witness was asked by the Judge whether he knew Ahmad H. and whether he remembered having seen him before. P3 explained that he had seen Ahmad H. many times around the city of Damascus, especially together with [redacted name]. The witness knew Ahmad H.’s nickname “Abu Haider Trucks” and recalled that the Accused was driving a yellow excavator truck at the time.
When asked to be more specific about the times he had seen Ahmad H. undertaking NDF-related activities, the witness recounted that he had seen Ahmad H. at checkpoints, where he was kidnapping people for forced labor.
In addition, P3 remembered having seen the Accused taking protection money from a food retailer named [redacted name] and beating him. The witness recounted how [redacted name] told Ahmad H. that he had already paid money. P3 added that the Accused told the retailer that he owed money to [redacted name] and started beating [redacted name].
The witness also recounted an incident at an “automated bakery” in At-Tadamon [note: the witness referred to the state-owned bakery], where the witness had seen [redacted name] and Ahmad H. beat a man in front of said bakery. According to the witness, [redacted name] was there as well, looked at the ID of the man and told him that he was a terrorist. This led to Ahmad H. and another person, who the witness was unable to identify, beating the man. The witness testified to have seen Ahmad H. kicking the man, taking him by his hair and smashing the man’s head on the ground. P3 also recalled having witnessed Ahmad H. loading the person into the car and driving off.
The witness further recalled an event where Ahmad H. stopped a minibus in which P3 was driving with ten other people. The Accused made them all step down from the bus and took money out of specific people’s wallets.
When asked by the Judge about Ahmad H.'s prior job, the witness said that he heard that Ahmad H. was an employee of the city, and that he had worked in a customer center but was not entirely sure about this information. The Judge also asked the witness about his knowledge regarding Ahmad H.’s health. The witness answered that he knew the Accused had heart problems. The witness further remembered that Ahmad H. was generally aggressive, shouted often and always seemed annoyed.
After this, the Prosecution took over the questioning. The Prosecutors wanted to know more detailed information about the events that unfolded in front of the bakery. The witness was asked to be more specific about how many people were there, how Ahmad H. beat and kicked the person exactly. The witness said that he could not remember the exact order but that Ahmad H. and other 4-5 soldiers in military clothing beat a man lying on the floor. First with the flat hand on the neck and then with the butt of their gun. Some discrepancy arose with the witness’s account during a prior police questioning. There he stated that a man named “[redacted name]” had a gun and hit the man on the floor, whilst Ahmad H. kicked the man’s head several times “as if it was a football”. The witness confirmed this.
The witness then recounted one encounter with Ahmad H. at a checkpoint. P3 explained that Ahmad H. let him go after the Accused had recognized him. P3 could not clarify the reasons for this. Following this account, the witness discussed something with his lawyer, who then announced that P3 did not want to divulge any information about the time during which he was kidnapped himself and he would also not testify about how he had escaped at the time.
When asked by the Judge about the videos discovered by P2 related to the At-Tadamon massacre and other crimes allegedly committed by the NDF, the witness explained that it was with the Source, P2, when he discovered the videos on Amjad Y.’s laptop. P3 added that when he saw the videos, he knew immediately that this was a serious issue. P3 discussed with P2 what to do and concluded that they would keep the videos until they found someone who could identify the victims shown on the video. Contact was then established with activists from the opposition.
The Judge asked P3 whether he had also been arrested, upon which the witness explained that he had been arrested once by Branch 215 of the Military Intelligence Services and another time by Branch 227. The first time, he was arrested because a detained person claimed that P3 was the nephew of the Prophet. P3 testified that he escaped but did not want to share how. The second time, the witness was detained because he allegedly received suspicious money from abroad. Before the Judges closed the session, the witness confirmed upon questioning that he was tortured, and the detention conditions were extremely bad.
The proceedings were adjourned at 4:00 PM.
The next trial day will be on July 3, 2024, at 9:00 AM.
Day 10 – July 3, 2024
The session started after a delay of an hour and a half. Initially, it was supposed to start half an hour later, at 9:30 am, as the Defense Counsel wanted to meet and discuss with Ahmad H. prior to the session. However, his Defense Counsel were unable to speak to Ahmad H. at the agreed time which resulted in a delay.
When the session started, Defense Counsel Schaper loudly proclaimed that how the prison staff was behaving and communicating with the Defense was unacceptable. He said that he was extremely angry and that he had never been treated like this before. The Judge only acknowledged the complaint and proceeded.
P3 was brought in to testify again, and the Defense Counsel began his questioning. The Counsel asked the witness how he knew Ahmad H.'s name and his nickname. The witness answered that at first, he only knew his last name: [redacted name], as well as his nickname: Abu Haider Trucks. He said he learned about the full name later through the news.
Notably, the Defense Counsel did not speak to the witness directly but instead referred to the interpreter to ask the witness. Upon noticing this, the Prosecutor interfered and told the Defense to address the witness directly. The Defense Counsel got angry, stating that he would oblige only out of courtesy as the Prosecution did not raise an official objection. The atmosphere was heated again.
Then, the Defense Counsel wanted to know more information about the “Source” [note: the Source is the witness who found the video and the brother of the witness questioned today, for more detail see Trial Report #3]. The Defense wanted to know the last time both had talked. The Counsel was further interested in whether the witness was informed by the Source about what the latter was asked in court and what P3 should say in court today. The witness testified this had not occurred. The lawyer representing the witness, who was different from the one yesterday, told the Court that P3 would not give further details revealing more information about himself or other people related to him. The Judge agreed that answering this type of questioning by the Defense would endanger P3 and the Source, as well as people related to both. Upon request of the Defense, the Judge then issued a formal order rejecting the question of the Defense.
Subsequently, the Defense Counsel asked questions regarding the videos. The Defense wanted to know how many videos the witness had seen and how he had proceeded in distributing them at the time. The witness recalled that he saw them all and that he had sent them to Syrian activists and human rights organizations. P3 went on explaining that the main purpose of passing them to different actors in Europe was to be able to identify the victims in the videos. P3 then explained that he was put into contact with SJAC, more specifically with Mohammad Al Abdallah. The witness testified: “he wanted to have at least one video. No one is going to understand without having seen a video he said. Thus, I sent P5 one video, and she sent it to the media.”
The Defense Counsel asked the witness whether he knew anything about a person named “[redacted name]”. Before P3 could reply, his lawyer reiterated that P3 would not provide any information. The Defense Counsel got angry and requested the lawyer first discuss with the witness whether he wants to answer or not. The Judge then decided to interrupt the session because P3 and his lawyer had issues communicating due to language barriers. The Judge gave them the opportunity to go outside of the courtroom and discuss with the interpreter whether P3 wanted to answer or not. When they came back, the witness refused to answer the question.
***
[10 - minutes - break]
***
After a short break, Defense Counsel Moschref said that he wanted to discuss something in private [it was unclear with whom exactly, but he was addressing the Judge]. The Judge asked the audience to leave the courtroom. The Prosecution, Defense and the Judges remained in the courtroom. When the public was permitted to re-enter the courtroom, the Judge explained that the witness would have to return another day, probably in September or October, for further questioning. Since the public was excluded from the discussion, the reasons remained obscured. The witness was then released, and the lunch break followed.
***
[60 - minutes - break]
***
After the lunch break, a new witness appeared before the Court: “Balah/Badah” Bukai. The witness came without a lawyer, was not under witness protection nor anonymized. P7 said that he was a Sunni and a warehouse helper, born in [redacted location] but lived in At-Tadamon.
When asked by the Prosecution whether he knew Ahmad H. the witness answered: “Who is the Accused?”. Upon this question, Defense Counsel Moschref raised his hand and smiled, which appeared as an attempt to confuse the witness. When he was told by the Judge who the actual Accused person was, the witness could not say he knew Ahmad H. P7 said that he felt like he had seen him before in At-Tadamon but could not remember where. The Prosecution tried to present many scenarios like “potentially with [redacted name]...” or “Potentially at the Baraka checkpoint...”, but P7 did not remember.
Upon further questioning, the witness recalled three different times he was kidnapped and had to undertake forced labor but did not mention Ahmad H. related to any of those events.
When asked, P7 remembered that the only Abu Haider he knew was [redacted name] because the witness was beaten by him when he was kidnapped, forced to do labor and fill sandbags at the frontline. The witness was then dismissed.
The proceedings were adjourned at 2:00 PM.
The next trial day will be on July 16, 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