Inside the Al-Yarmouk Trial of Jihad et al. #14

TRIAL OF JIHAD A., MAHMOUD A., MAZHAR J., SAMEER S., AND WAEL S.

Higher Regional Court in Koblenz, Germany

The Center for Victims of Torture (CVT) provided support to SJAC to monitor this trial and prepare the first six monitoring reports. CVT has continued the monitoring of this trial from report seven onwards and has edited them according to its own style guidelines.

CAUTION: Some testimony may include graphic descriptions of torture, rape or other violent acts.      

This is an informal summary of the proceedings and not a verbatim transcript. CVT has chosen not to use the names of witnesses or detailed information that could be used to identify them.

Trial Report 14: Summary

On the first day of this week, witness W13 testified about a large demonstration in Yarmouk on July 13, 2012, during which security forces allegedly opened fire and several people were killed or injured. He identified or described a number of individuals known to him from the neighborhood, including some defendants, but said he did not see all of them at the demonstration and could not confirm all alleged roles or affiliations. The witness also addressed later contact with Jihad A. in Berlin and questions concerning the sources he used to document events in Yarmouk.

Trial Day 24: April 22, 2026

Today, the court heard a new witness, W13, who is currently unemployed. He confirmed being neither related nor connected by marriage with any of the accused.

At the outset, the witness was shown photographs of various individuals, some of whom he recognized, including Sameer S., Wael S., Mazhar J., and Jihad A. When asked how long he had stayed in Yarmouk and what he had done there, he replied that he had lived there until a particular time and had worked as a construction laborer. He gave the date and his in initial address in Yarmouk, then said he later lived directly opposite the mosque on Palestine Street.

The court asked about the demonstrations the witness had observed. He reported several, highlighting a large demonstration on July 13, 2012, which moved from Al-Quds Street to Palestine Street. The witness said he was merely a bystander but noticed the growing crowd outside his office opposite the mosque. Suddenly, security forces, whose exact affiliation he could not recall, opened fire. His office was located on Al-Tyra Street. He emphasized that there were no police or scouts present, only residents and regime supporters. A certain man named Abu, F41, acted as a kind of leader and was armed and shooting.

When asked whether he had later walked again along Al-Quds Street, he denied doing so and pointed to the many injured and dead. He explained that some people helped while others fled. He could not recall exactly how he had helped. He identified some armed individuals, including F42 and Mahmoud S. [brother of the accused in Sweden] and another man named Abu, F43, among others, noting that F42 was not seen carrying a weapon. The armed men were moving on foot and were not using cars or other vehicles.

The events of the July 13, 2012 demonstration remained vivid in the witness’s memory because many people died, including a boy from a particular family known to him.

Using a map, the witness explained the local layout of Yarmouk, pointing out the Palestine Mosque and the roundabout. He said he was standing outside his office when the demonstration began. About four to five security personnel passed by, some of whom he knew personally, including F21, with whom he had worked as a construction laborer for 12 years, as well as F42 and Moafak D.

Out of curiosity, he followed the demonstration for a short distance but fled when the shooting started. He remained in his office until the evening. He could not recall seeing any funeral processions. The court noted that he often used “we” in his statements, and he clarified that he referred to himself and used it as a figure of speech. The demonstration continued until sunset. He heard that F23 had died. According to the witness, many people commonly accompany the injured to the hospital out of concern.

[10-minute break]

After the break, the witness reiterated that F23 had died on Al-Quds Street. The witness estimated the number of demonstrators to be in the dozens. After the shooting, panic ensued and people fled in all directions. He said he himself did not stay long and returned to his office.

He reported that [Imam] Siriaa had been replaced by a substitute. He did not see F22 at the demonstration and had no contact with him, having met him only a few years earlier. F22 worked as an ambulance driver for a doctor, F44.

The witness also knew another person he named, who attended the demonstration and briefly stopped by the witness’s office without discussing the events. The witness testified that he knew all the accused. Regarding Wael S., a friend from the 1990s, the witness said he knew where the family lived. He did not see Wael carrying a weapon, and the witness did not know whether he belonged to any group. Wael ran a shop selling cassettes, perfume, and later mobile phones, always something that would attract women. The witness did not see Wael on the day of the demonstration.

The witness knew Sameer S. by residence but was unaware of his activities. Sameer carried a Russian weapon and was seen near F5’s, house, though the witness did not know what he was doing there. He did not see Sameer at the checkpoint. Sameer was connected to F5 and was identified by police as an FPM member, although the FPM only adopted that name in 2012.

The witness knew F45 only by sight. The witness recalled that it was said that he was a kind of agent. He also knew little about Mahmoud A., but saw him armed with a Kalashnikov in 2012, likely as an FPM leader. The witness said he had heard about acts of violence involving him but had not witnessed any personally.

The witness recognized the accused Jihad A. but knew him also only by sight. Jihad was from the neighborhood, and there were many family ties. He belonged to the FPM and worked for F5. The witness saw him armed in a side alley in 2012. Jihad later wanted to distance himself from the FPM and spoke with W13 in Europe around 2018 or 2019.

The witness rejected claims that people feared Jihad, explaining that no one dared share information about him. He said this was generally true for armed groups, especially the Shabihas, who had threatened the accused from Syria.

[75-minute break]

The witness was asked whether he knew certain nicknames, such as those for F21 and F46, both of whom he recognized. He was shown a handwritten note he had allegedly written during a previous police interview. At first, he could not recall it, but then remembered it, although he did not know why he had written it. The note stated that he had seen the person armed and present at the July 13 demonstration and earlier protests, describing them as part of an armed group that fired during various demonstrations.

He was asked whether there were spontaneous demonstrations in general. The witness remembered that demonstrations were taking place everywhere but could not recall specifics, noting that there was a period when demonstrations occurred almost daily. When asked about roadblocks, he confirmed their existence but said he did not see any of the accused present there.

The prosecution then asked about the connection between himself and Jihad A. in Europe, and the purpose of their meeting. The witness testified that it was a coincidence that they met at a friend’s party and that they spoke only briefly. He described regime supporters without blood on their hands as “donkeys,” a term he used for Jihad. When asked whether he still had contact with him, he denied this, apart from the meeting by chance in Europe. The only other contact was when Jihad’s brother contacted him, claiming that W13 was “a witness against his brother.” The witness recalled his reply during that meeting with Jihad’s brother: “No, a witness for what? I’m a witness for what I saw. Ask the lawyer what that means.” He clarified that he was not a witness against them but only a witness to what he had seen. He also mentioned that a relative of Jihad was married to one of his relatives, a certain F47, in Saudi Arabia, a paternal cousin of Jihad.

[20-minute break]

The witness then said that he had sources because he intended to write about what had happened in the Yarmouk camp. When asked about those sources, he said journalists would not be asked such questions. It was then asserted that he was not a journalist. The witness agreed and explained that he had his own means and sources, consisting of firsthand sources and eyewitnesses, none of whom were in Europe. The witness paid between 100 and 200 euros for photos and information and confirmed that he paid depending on the information provided. When asked about the value of the photos, he explained there was no fixed price, as after 2018 people were mainly seeking food. He could not provide names. Asked where he got the money from, he said it was his own, earned through work, and not from social benefits.

The witness also mentioned that he wanted to start a workshop to pass on knowledge about what had happened in the Yarmouk camp, including why relatives had drowned or died in the desert. He hoped to make a film or write a novel but lacked the funds. He said such a project required neutrality and documentation.

When asked about the source of his information, the witness explained he had also received information from a lieutenant colonel and that the accused would know him, but he repeatedly said that none of his sources were in Europe because “no one in Europe would claim they had no money for rent.” When asked whether he was connected to the SFA, he denied it. A shooting order on July 13, 2012, allegedly given by Iman Siriaa, was then mentioned, but the witness repeated that Siriaa was already dead by then and that a substitute had carried out the order.

Later, the court recalled that the witness had said he was surprised that Wael S. had been charged and did not know why. The court recalled that Wael was allegedly an armed member of the FPM and had committed crimes. The witness said he did not know but that, if true, “he might regret having greeted him.” When asked about what he remembered of the accused Wael between 1997 and 2008, the witness recalled that he was well dressed, wore perfume from friends, and winked at women and girls. He had not seen him after 2010 or 2011.

When asked whether F21 had a certain reputation, the witness said he did not want to speak about the deceased. He said F21 had been a bodyguard before the revolution and might have been proud of that, but he reiterated his reluctance to speak about the dead.

Asked whether he believed the accused Wael was an FPM member, W13 said no. Towards the end, relationships between the S. and [the plaintiff’s] families were discussed. The witness said he had heard of no conflicts between the families and neither between S. and another family.

When asked whether he saw ambulances at the July 13, 2012 demonstration, he testified that he had only heard sirens. Finally, when asked whether the accused [Wael] was conspicuous or normal, the witness said he was less than normal, meaning not conspicuous at all.

The proceedings were adjourned at 3:45 PM.

The next trial day will be on April 23, 2026, at 9:00 AM

Trial Day 25: April 23, 2026

[CVT was unable to monitor this trial day.]

The next trial day will be on April 29, 2026, at 10:00 AM.

[Note: Trial Report 15: CVT was further unable to monitor the hearing on April 29, 2026. The hearing scheduled for April 30, 2026 was cancelled by the Court.]

The next trial day will be on May 6, 2026, at 10:00 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