Inside the Ahmad H. Trial #9: The First Witness Returns

Hanseatic Higher Regional Court – Hamburg, Germany

Trial Monitoring Summary #9

Hearing Dates: August 1, 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 9th trial monitoring report details day 15 of the trial of Ahmad H. in Hamburg, Germany. The questioning of witness P5 resumed today. The first half of the witness’s testimony revolved around two video-recorded interviews with P5’s sources, Amjad Y. and [redacted name]. The witness admitted that one of these videos was published unintentionally. The witness was also confronted by the Judge about what two of her sources had revealed to the witness about Ahmad H.’s involvement as a militia member in the Tadamon massacre. The witness was only able to remember that it was said Ahmad H. was part of “the network”. The witness did not investigate the role of the Accused any further.

The questioning by the Defense Team followed. It asked the witness to identify the hidden source who had suggested the Accused's involvement in the massacres. Just as on the first day of questioning of P5, this question led to a lengthy argument between Judges and Defense Counsel Moshref with regard to whether the witness would have to reveal anything about these sources due to Data Protection Laws. The Judges decided that she did not have to reveal anything further.

Day 15 – August 1 ,2024

Today the questioning of P5 continued. The witness was accompanied again by members of the witness protection unit and her legal representative, Counsel Hunchback. At the beginning of the session, the Judge read out the Court's decision regarding the potential revealing of P5's sources requested by the Defense during day 14 of the trial [for more details, see Trial Report #8]. The decision detailed that there are no grounds for changing the Court's prior decision in which the Court held that P5 was entitled to protect her sources. The Judge argued that the principle of proportionality applies to restricting academic freedom. In this case, P5 did not have to reveal the identity of her sources as she has promised them anonymization and the witnesses and their families would be threatened with violence, torture or even death if they were not anonymized. According to the Court, the research met scientific quality standards, and the witness Dr. Guido Steinberg attributed a central role to P5’s research regarding the investigation of the genocide in Syria. The Judge also announced that the Defense’s objection that the Accused recognized one of the anonymized witnesses during the trial cannot be addressed any further for the time being, as the Accused remained silent on the matter.

After this, the questioning of the witness began. First, the Judge asked the witness again about the publication of the videos of the Tadamon massacre and the extent to which the witness's recordings of the conversations with Amjad Y. أمجد ي and [redacted name] were published as well as the videos. The witness replied that one of the interviews had been published unintentionally. P5 also claimed that sequences of a video with Amjad Y. and [redacted name] were also published.

The witness was then shown two photos and asked whether these were screenshots  of the video mentioned by P5, as well as a photo of the video sequences with Amjad Y. and [redacted name] P5 confirmed and told the Judge that the first photo was from the first video, showing Amjad Y.'s office, as well as a photo of Assad in the background.

The Judge asked P5 a specific question about Jamal Al-Khatib and whether she remembered him saying anything to her about the treatment of prisoners, about the rehabilitation of prisoners or about the fact that there are reports in the media about killings and massacres of prisoners. P5 explained that she had told [redacted name] that through the media one hears of the regime killing prisoners. What P5 wanted to achieve by this, as she explained, was to hear his opinion on the treatment of prisoners. According to P5, [redacted name] talked about how the detention of prisoners was too expensive, that the cost of caring for prisoners was too high. The witness interpreted it as a suggestion that instead of looking after the prisoners, it would be bureaucratically easier to kill them immediately.

The witness was also questioned by the Judge about her knowledge of Ahmad H.'s involvement in the excavation of pits for the massacre in Tadamon. The Judge also confronted P5 with the fact that sources of hers testified to this. One source revoked the statement afterwards, but two former members of the NDF did confirm Ahmad H.'s involvement as a militia member in the killings. P5 explained that she could not remember exactly but that it was said that Ahmad H. was part of “the network”. Her sources claimed that he worked for [redacted name] and was part of the “killing system”. However, P5 also testified that she did not investigate into the role of Ahmad H. any further.

The Judge then asked P5 a question about the article she wrote for New Lines Magazine regarding forced labor. The article had reported that “people were shot and buried” and the Judge wanted to know where this information had come from. The witness explained that she had received the information verbally from a member of the NDF who still lives in Syria.

After this, the Judge referred to a “longer conversation with Amjad Y. [and P5], which was apparently not recorded in full”. He therefore asked the witness whether perhaps there had been a technical problem. The witness explained that the video was recorded after he contacted her, so the “greeting part” of the video was missing.

The Prosecution did not have any questions.

The Defense Team then started its questioning and asked the witness whether she knew which videos the Court had seen as evidence. The witness answered that she gave the videos to the police and did not know which ones the Court had received. The Defense then suggested that one could look at the videos in court together and P5 could confirm whether the list of videos was complete. Video [redacted information] was viewed, and the witness was asked whether this was the first video with Amjad Y. P5 confirmed and testified that the list of videos was complete [note: This and the following videos were not visible to the public, spectators could only hear the audio stream].

After this, the beginning of video [redacted information] was viewed [note: It was not visible to the public]. The Defense intervened and argued that the video started in the middle [of the interview] and that the beginning was missing. The witness then explained that Amjad Y. had written her a message before and called her directly [before the recording had started]. Then the Defense noted that in one section of the video translation it said “imagine we are talking...” but then the video crashes. P5 explained that her recording program had crashed and that from that point on there was an audio recording of the tape. The Defense asked whether this recording was still available and whether P5 had handed it over to the police. The witness confirmed. The Defense asked P5 whether she could make the tape recording available to the Defense and give it to them through the witness's counsel. The witness agreed and said that she would discuss it with him [the Counsel] right away.

The inspection of the video recording of a conversation with [redacted name] followed [note: It was not visible to the public]. The Defense asked whether this had been the end of the video and P5 explained that she remembered the video to be longer, over an hour long and that the original version had a different beginning. She then said she would ask her superior to confirm. The Defense argued that there was no video with [redacted name] that was over an hour long, and asked the witness whether she could provide the Court with the missing records. The witness confirmed. P5 also explained that she had shared all the files from the drive with the police, which was a joint drive with her professor and the police was granted access later.

The Defense then asked whether the two NDF members P5 had spoken of “as sources” were the witnesses who worked together to transmit the videos to P5. The witness did not want to answer that question. She argued that one of the two sources was still living in Syria, but she did not want to provide information about the other source. As a result, the Defense claimed that the witness had to answer this question and repeated the question “Did the second person testify here? Is it one of the two brothers?” The witness's counsel Mr. Hunchback intervened and wanted to clarify: “Is this a question about where the other witness lives?”. The Defense responded that it was not and got quite impatient when saying “I have asked the question several times. I want to know if it is one of the brothers. I'm not stupid.” The witness’s counsel responded that there was no need to be loud and the Judge intervened stating that there was no need for Defense Counsel Moshref to accuse Mr. Hunchback of malice. The Judge explained that the question posed by the Defense was whether the person who accompanied P5 to the police station in Paris [for questioning] was an NDF member who testified about the Accused or whether it was one of the brothers, who jointly copied and transmitted the videos. The witness answered that she knew which person the Judge was referring to but that she did not want to answer.

Just as on the first day of P5’s questioning, the Defense’s question led to an argument between Judge and Defense Counsel regarding whether the witness would have to reveal details about these potential sources.

The Judges stated that the answer to the Defense’s question might reveal the identity and endanger the witness as there is an interest in locating the person and thus identification might be possible. When the Defense Counsel argued that he did not ask about an individual witness, the Judge answered that “It's about narrowing it down to two brothers - that's a no-brainer.” He then stated that the witness invoked the right to refuse to provide information and ordered that she did not have to reveal anything further due to Data Protection Legislation.

Finally, the Defense Counsel asked P5 how it could be that “such a laptop” [note: The Defense most likely meant the sensitive information such as the videos of the Tadamon massacre] was given to a subordinate. The witness answered that everyone was asking themselves that question. Upon the question of the Defense whether this was common practice P5 testified that it was not common practice, but there were exceptions. There was not a high level of professionalism compared to other intelligence services.

P5 was then asked to comment or to give an assessment based on her knowledge of the situation in Syria. She was asked by the Defense about the situation of al-Nusra and the Islamic State in Syria in 2013. The witness answered that neither of the groups were active in Syria in 2013. Neither group was in Tadamon at the time, P5 explained. The witness guessed that perhaps they were active in other places in Syria. She also testified that their existence would not have necessarily been a pretext to kill people in this horrible way. The witness clarified that neither group had anything to do with what happened. There had been demonstrations by civilians against the regime, which were violently put down by it and the victims of violence were civilians, P5 explained. The groups of civilians were labeled criminals by the regime, there were fights between armed groups, which contributed to the increase in violence against civilians.

Then the Defense asked the witness whether all Alawites living in Tadamon were left alone (by the NDF) because of their religious affiliation. P5 answered that she was against generalizing. Alawites had also been victims of violence by the Assad regime. They had been affected by thefts, extortion and kidnappings. Yet, the witness explained they were not persecuted as systematically as the opposition. When confronted by the Defense with the statement that “there was testimony that religious affiliation was a protection”, the witness responded: “That is not correct or not sufficient. The political orientation was also relevant. As an Alawite, there was a lower probability of being persecuted.”

The interpreter intervened and asked for a break.

***

[60- minutes - break]

***

After the break, P5 was questioned by the Defense whether there was an agreement between the regime and the NDF in Tadamon that people who joined the NDF would not have to do military service. P5 answered that there were such agreements in several places [throughout Syria].

The Defense then explained to the witness that there had been accounts during the trial that conscripts were sought out by the police and called up for military service and that the NDF prevented this. The witness responded that she could imagine that these people had been relatives of NDF members or had relationships with the NDF. P5 also said that only the military police were responsible for conscripting people for military service.

Then, the Defense asked the witness whether there had been a pattern of who was taken to checkpoints. The witness argued that according to the people she had spoken to, it was young men from poor backgrounds who had no means of paying ransom money and people whose political views were questioned. P5 recounted that often people never came back from forced labor. They would often disappear. In Syria, one would say that they “became martyrs”, she explained.

The Defense then went on to ask P5 whether it would be conceivable for her to put a stop to criminals like Amjad Y. but protect other criminals. P5 answered that she might talk to people who have become criminals, but that it would be up to the judiciary to decide whether they are criminals. She added that she was interested in understanding how groups and dynamics emerged during the crisis. The Defense then asked whether P5 believed all NDF members were criminals. P5 pointed out again that she does not like to generalize and that affiliation with the NDF does not necessarily imply the participation in acts of violence. Some people joined the NDF to protect themselves, others wanted to commit acts of violence, again others have distanced themselves from the NDF in the process, she explained.

***

[5- minutes - break]

***

After the break Defense Counsel Moshref pointed out that he has great respect for P5’s work and stated “(...) such criminals must be caught. Continue in the same way, [redacted name], and try to find the person who made these terrible videos of the massacre.”

The Counsel then requested access to the audio files that were available to the Prosecution and the Senate.

The Judge announced that no witness would be heard on the next day of the trial, instead video files and documents would be inspected. The witness was thanked and released.

The proceedings were adjourned at 2:20 PM.

The next trial day will be on August 27, 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