Inside the Al-Yarmouk Trial of Jihad et al. #7

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

Higher Regional Court in Koblenz, Germany 

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 7: Summary

After a change in defense counsel, the defense sought to reschedule evidence to avoid the police interviewer testifying before key witnesses. The judge acknowledged the concern but proceeded. The witness, a police officer, then summarized interviews conducted with W5 and F20 abroad, including photo identifications and allegations linked to the July 2012 Yarmouk demonstration, and a DVD was admitted into evidence. The defense then argued the testimony should be excluded as procedurally flawed, largely second-hand, and insufficient to establish specific crimes or individual responsibility.

The second day began with procedural matters and the presentation of three images of identity documents reportedly found on a mobile phone, followed by witness testimony from an asylum-interview officer, W7, whose interview record was admitted despite defense objections. The testimony addressed the applicant’s account of imprisonment, alleged assistance by F5, a high-ranking figure, and subsequent work as driver/security personnel, while noting inconsistencies but no interpretation problems. After a break, police investigator W6 testified again and presented several online propaganda-style videos attributed to a movement’s media apparatus. The defense counsel challenged their authenticity and probative value and requested formal recording and verification. A later police witness, W8, recounted a separate investigative interview that broadly overlapped on key points but did not confirm certain alleged details, after which the court noted the defense statement would be entered into the record.

Trial Day 12: February 4, 2026

Following a change in counsel for Mazhar J., the trial began with motions by the defense counsel of Mazhar J., Mahmoud A., Sameer S. and Jihad A. to reschedule this day’s witness examination. Witness W6, a police officer, was asked to testify about his interview with W5 and F20. The defense counsel argued, among other things, that his examination before the testimony of F20 and the full completion of W5’s testimony before the court might distort the view of their testimonies. The presiding judge agreed with their reasoning but was unwilling to cancel the witness examination at the last minute.

W6 is a police officer with the German criminal investigation department [KriPo]. He had interviewed F20 and W5 concerning the case. After being informed of his rights and obligations before the court, the presiding judge asked him to describe the circumstances surrounding F20’s police interview. Throughout the entirety of the examination of W6, the Judges regularly confronted him with sections from the transcript of the respective interview. Except for minor details, they matched W6’s testimony in court. W6 testified that he had interviewed F20 together with W3, in Sweden. The questions asked in the interview had only concerned Mahmoud A. as the cases of the different Accused were only joined together later.

W6 then detailed F20’s testimony: He had recognized all the accused in pictures and had given detailed statements concerning them. He had said that Jihad A. was a member of the FPM; he had seen him multiple times at the checkpoint but had not been able to testify to specific crimes Jihad A. had committed. F20 had named Mazhar J. an informant of the Security Services but had not been able to testify as to specific crimes. He had not known whether Wael S. or Sameer S. had been members of any group but had testified that Sameer S. had kidnapped and ransomed someone. The entire family S. had been linked to the Security Services and had basked in the reputation of F21, a relative of the two accused. He had also recognized Mahmoud A. and said that he had beaten civilians at a supply spot for humanitarian aid, though he had not personally observed it. Most of the examination concerned the demonstration of July 13, 2012. F20 initially had had difficulties putting the events in order or even placing the demonstration, W6 recalled. Later, F20 had testified that he had not actively participated but observed. He had then sketched a map of the events surrounding the demonstration and the path taken by the protesters. The group around F5 had fired at the protesters someplace near Palestine Street. Amongst those F20 had named as perpetrators were F5, Mahmoud S. [the accused before the Solna District Court, Sweden], Mahmoud A., Moafak D. and F21. The men had worn protective vests over civilian clothing. They had carried pistols and Kalashnikovs and had all shot at least one magazine at the civilians. There had not been any warning shots. F20 had not personally observed anyone fall victim but had heard of seven victims later and had given the names he remembered to W6 during the interview. He had also been shot at.

W6 also recalled that F20 had claimed to have thoroughly studied the events at Yarmouk after leaving the camp and W6 said that he believed him.

Upon being asked, W6 testified that F20 had said that Mazhar J. had spent his days in front of the court selling stamps. He had been an informant and unimportant member of the Security Services. Jihad A. had often manned a checkpoint and had been known to be an aide and companion of F5. He had been involved in arrests at a school, but F20 had not known of further crimes he had committed. F20 had given descriptions of both men, though he claimed to have only ever met them in passing in Yarmouk. He had given further testimony concerning Mahmoud A., whom he had described as a group leader within the GC, later the FPM and close to F5. He had often abused his authority and demeaned others.

The examination then turned to the interview of W5. W6 testified that he had interviewed W5 outside of Germany, but only as to matters not covered by previous interviews. W5 had also testified that Mazhar J. was a member of the Security Services. He had seen him often in Yarmouk, sometimes manning a checkpoint. He had abused civilians and had several people, some alleged to be a part of the FSA, arrested at the checkpoint, although the arrests themselves had been carried out by others, including Mahmoud S. and Mahmoud A. Some of the arrested had been put into a white bus, known to have been used for the Tadamon massacre. Mazhar J. had also been present at the demonstration of July 13, 20212, and had also shot at protesters. W5 had given detailed statements, including positioning, because he had driven an ambulance and been present at the events.

He had also testified to having seen others at the demonstration who had also fired their weapons, including Mahmoud S., F21, Mahmoud A. and Jihad A., whom he had known by a nickname. He had also testified that Jihad A. had been involved in the robbery of stores in Yarmouk. W5 had recognized every person he had spoken of in a photo spread.

Upon questioning by the defense, W6 could not confirm that Sameer S. or Wael S. had been mentioned during the interview.

***  

[80-minute break]  

***

During the break, W6 supplied the presiding judge with a DVD that held more details surrounding the case. The DVD was acknowledged as evidence and entered into the record.

Upon questioning by the defense, W6 testified that F20 had said that while he knew of so-called “investigation groups”, he himself worked and researched alone. The defense asked W6 about his impression of W5 to which he said that the personality of a witness did not concern him, nor did his engagement in researching the events of Yarmouk. He had questioned him as to his past in Syria but could not recall details at this time. The defense asked W6 a series of questions about the details of the answers supplied by F20 and W5, which W6 could mostly not answer, and about the details of the interview itself, some of which W6 could not answer due to confidentiality obligations.

W6 testified that F20 had written down the names of people he had seen fire at civilians at the demonstration of July 13, 2026, which was then entered into the court record. The list included Moafak D., Mahmoud S., Mahmoud A. and F5.

W6 also said that the witnesses had previously been supervised by the police in another country’s jurisdiction and informed of their rights by them according to its law. He had done the same according to German law. He did not know whether and in what detail the witnesses had been interviewed by police in the other jurisdiction.

Upon insistent questioning by the defense, he testified that he personally saw no reason to doubt the testimonies of F20 and W5.

Some time was spent on formalities concerning the proper translation of the witness instructions by the translator, where there were problems.

W6 was dismissed at 3:45 PM.

The defense for Jihad A. then argued, and defense counsel for the other accused agreed, that the testimony of W6 should be discounted in full: The witnesses were not properly informed of their rights, because they, as non-German citizens being interviewed outside of Germany, are not obligated to testify and this was not included in the witness instructions. Further, the defense argued that W6 did not give any relevant testimony concerning the trustworthiness or other anomalies surrounding the police interviews of F20 and W5, the supposed topic of his witness examination. He only relayed their testimony, which carries little inherent value next to their actual testimonies. This second-hand testimony also lacked concrete facts of crimes allegedly committed by the accused. Sameer S. and Wael S. were not implicated at all. They also cited W6’s apparent uncritical acceptance of the testimonies.

The proceedings were adjourned at 4:05 PM

The next trial day will be on February 5, 2026, at 9:00 AM.

Trial Day 13: February 5, 2026

The second trial day of the week began with procedural matters, waiting for the witness to arrive one hour later. After defense counsel Baumgart handed in a statement regarding the witness testimony from the day prior, three pictures were shown, which were used as evidence in the trial in Sweden [against Mahmoud S.]. All three pictures showed identity cards from various institutions that were reportedly found on Mahmoud A.’s mobile phone by Swedish police. The first identity card was a military identity card belonging to the FPM that listed Mahmoud A.’s name, birthday, identity number, and the name of his mother. Upon questioning by one counsel, the interpreter explained that the name “Free Palestine Movement” was not explicitly mentioned on the card. The second picture shown was of an identity card belonging to F22, this time clearly being marked as an identity card for the FPM and mentioning his function as a military official. The third and last picture belonged to F22, as well, specifying his position as a civilian worker of the General Command (PFLP-GC). The document was a driver’s license for civilian workers, issued on December 3, 2005 and valid until December 2013.

At 9:34 AM, witness W7 entered. Before W7 began testifying, two of the defense counsel opposed his testimony. The presiding judge and the prosecutors quickly shut down this request, arguing that records of interviews in the context of asylum applications were viable in court, according to the German Federal Court of Justice, citing a judgment from December 12, 1989 (Federal Court of Justice [BGH], case number, 2 StR 167/89). Following this, the testimony began.

W7 noted that he worked for the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) and was responsible for conducting interviews with asylum seekers. One of these asylum seekers was Mahmoud A., whose statements were recounted by the witness. After some general information about A. and his family, the judges asked for aspects relevant to the present case. According to the witness, Mahmoud A. said in his interview that his daughter was kidnapped, raped, and imprisoned by the Assad-regime in 2014. He also told the BAMF that he was imprisoned for seven months because he had been transporting gas bottles and was captured at a checkpoint outside the Yarmouk camp. While imprisoned, F5 visited the prison for what seemed to be a checkup; Mahmoud A. had known F5 as a neighbor growing up in Yarmouk. F5 helped Mahmoud A. leave the prison thanks to his high rank and offered Mahmoud A. a job as a driver and security personnel for F5’s purposes.

Upon further inquiry by the judges, W7 assured that while there were discrepancies that appeared during the asylum interview, there were no interpretation issues. Moreover, Mahmoud A. seemed to have understood the context of all questions he was asked. W7 recalled that Mahmoud A. was inconsistent with the facts. The asylum application was filed on grounds of family reunification, as at least his wife and son had already been granted asylum in Germany. W7 also recalled that Mahmoud A. appeared frail and repeatedly mentioned his health issues, partially due to years of heart problems.

Defense counsel Flintrop asked W7 for details about the job F5 had offered to Mahmoud A. and his relationship with him. W7 did not recall details but also repeated that Mahmoud A.’s responses had been inconsistent during the questioning. Asked about the period of imprisonment, W7 remembered that Mahmoud A. stated that he had been imprisoned for eight days following a demonstration in the camp prior to the longer imprisonment of seven months. He claimed that the long imprisonment took place in 2015, after which he worked for F5 for several months. According to W7’s recollection of the asylum interview, Mahmoud A.’s wife left for Europe at an earlier point. Upon further questioning by defense counsel Flintrop, W7 repeated that he did not know all of the details, but that he recalled that the responses of his own questioning of Mahmoud A. were not consistent with the arrest warrant he had read later. According to W7, following the publication of specific aspects of the case, a bounty was offered for the capture of Mahmoud A. Regarding the reason for his escape from Syria, W7 explained that Mahmoud A. had mentioned he feared F5 and did not want him to know of his attempt to leave Syria. He also stated that he was scared of being sent back to Syria due to his prior escape. Defense counsel Grassel then specifically asked about the job Mahmoud A. was doing for F5. W7 replied that Mahmoud A. had told him that he was a sort of bodyguard for F5, but also a mechanic and a driver, mainly for supplies.

The witness was then dismissed.

***

[10-minute-break]

***

Following a short break, a new witness appeared. W6 is an investigator from the criminal police [Kriminalpolizei (KriPo)], who worked on the case and compiled and labelled videos, was heard again after having testified the day prior. Before the videos could be shown in court, defense attorneys Baumgart and Hedrich objected because different videos than the ones that were scheduled to be shown were displayed. All defense counsel voiced concerns about the proof of authenticity and authorship. Eventually, a total of seven videos were shown, which were published by some part of the FPM on the platform YouTube, according to the witness.

The first video showed a montage of destruction in Yarmouk. A man in a suit was being guided around the camp by heavily armed men in military uniforms. The man was interviewed, speaking Arabic, while standing in front of one of the destroyed houses. The interpreter translated but remarked that he was unable to make a temporal reference, making it difficult to determine when the video was recorded. The man was referred to as the leader of the Palestinians, greeted the martyrs that had died in the battle for freedom and made political references, such as that the Gulf States were responsible for destroying Syria and that the Hamas had betrayed Assad after being supported by the Syrian Regime for so long. After being asked by defense counsel Grassel, the interpreter mentioned that he assumed that the man in the interview was F18, the leader of FPM at some point.

The second video was titled “Burial of an FPM Member” and showed a funeral – a large crowd of people, shots into the air, music in the background of the video and the same man as in the video before, F18. It also showed crying women and a group praying together. On the coffin in the video, the name of the killed man was written next to “FPM” and martyr, as well as the date of death: May 1, 2016. The video was manufactured by the media department of the FPM, as a text in the video mentioned.

The third video was the same as the first, except this time with the inscription “Tour through Yarmouk for [F18].” The interpreter also remarked that this time, he had heard the name of F18 in the interview.

The fourth video was named “propoganda-video.mp4” and showed heavily armed men in a mostly destroyed residential area. These men appeared to be training for military operations, showing dashcam footage and tanks as well as pictures of men posing together in military uniforms. The interpreter explained that the words “FPM – military wing” was written in the beginning of the video and that the title that appeared in the beginning of the video read “Documentation of the shared military operations of the Syrian Army and the FPM under cooperation of the Palestinian factions and the national fighters of the Yarmouk Camp”. Upon questioning by defense counsel Baumgart, the interpreter said that the target of these military operations was not clear, simply stating “against terrorism” as the cause. The timeframe of this video was not identified, and the manufacturer of the video was called the “Lion of the Movement”, according to the video.

The fifth video was titled “video of a witness” and showed very young armed boys and an assembly of people in a confined space along with flags and other military décor. The video showed different text fields between different scenes. The interpreter named these partially as “Preparation for the Battle of War” and “Entering into Ambush”, although the meaning of these was not specified. Inscriptions on the wall were related to the military wing of the FPM and on a visible car it said “Resistance” and “Forces”. There was also a song playing in the background which was recognized to be a song about the Yarmouk camp. Upon questioning by defense counsel Fratzkey, it was made clear that there was no visible temporal reference in the video.

The sixth video was a slideshow of military operations, flags and a specific man in the foreground of the video. The interpreter explained that on a poster, a martyr of FPM was mentioned and that the man in the forefront was described as the “leader to victory”.

The seventh and last video was also a slideshow with music in the background. The pictures primarily showed F18 with the man from the sixth video with music playing in the background of which the interpreter understood the lyrics “we are the majority, us, our land, our rights”. At the end of the video, the same banner as in other videos is shown, marking the video as one from the FPM’s Media Department.

After all these videos were played multiple times for the interpreter to translate and classify the contents, all defense counsel voiced their protest. Defense attorney Baumgart filed a statement based on Sect. 257 German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). He argued that the videos that were shown did not have any evidential value because neither place, nor time, nor people that were shown in the video could be adequately identified. The viewing of the videos was therefore, according to him, misleading and could invoke a belief of correlation when there was not, in fact, proof of any such correlation. There were no connections to the demonstrations that are the main subject of the trial and according to Baumgart, the showing of the propaganda videos showed the bias of the presiding judge and would further the pre-existing bias in the courtroom. Defense counsel Baumgart therefore requested this position be taken into the protocol and that the videos be authenticated. Only defense counsel Gretsch joined this motion.

***

[80-minute break]

***

After the lunch break, the second witness, W8, was questioned. W8 explained that he was a policeman in the state of Rheinland-Pfalz and had conducted the questioning of Mahmoud A. in regards to the investigation into Moafak D. in Berlin. According to W8, at the moment of questioning, Mahmoud A. was living with a family member in Germany. The story that Mahmoud A. told was that he had lived in Yarmouk until 2012, finishing the seventh grade and then becoming a truck driver. Mahmoud A. said that he was arrested in 2014 for transporting gas bottles and remained imprisoned for nine months and subsequently worked for F5, who had helped him leave imprisonment. According to W8, Mahmoud A. had worked as a driver and security personnel for F5 and had the right to enter and leave Yarmouk camp as he wished after 2012 thanks to this job. Upon questioning by the presiding judge, W8 recalled that Mahmoud A. had mentioned his health problems many times and had stated that he was sometimes forgetful due to this, but that he could remember the most important things. W8 asked Mahmoud A. primarily in connection to the case against Moafak D., because he was questioning Mahmoud A. in the context of that investigation. Mahmoud A. had reportedly told W8 that he knew of Moafak D. and his position as commander of the General Command, but that he himself had never been a part of that group.

Defense counsel Grassel began his line of questioning by asking whether W8 believed that Mahmoud A. had understood the legal instruction according to Sect. 55 German Code of Criminal Procedure (“right to refuse to give information”), to which he replied that Mahmoud A. had also signed this procedural aspect. The question of the escape from Yarmouk and the reasons remained mainly unanswered since W8 said that these questions were not the priority of the questioning. Mahmoud A. had reportedly mentioned that the conditions in the camp were terrible but had not said whether they had substantially improved in the next place he lived, outside of the camp. Regarding Mahmoud A.’s relationship with Moafak D., W8 recalled Mahmoud A. saying that while the two had known each other as children in the camp, their relationship was not close and, at the point of the questioning, non-existent.

Defense counsel Flintrop asked the witness whether Mahmoud A. had mentioned the kidnapping and rape of his daughter or had made any mention of Hamas, to which W8 replied that he did not recall any such mention.

The witness was dismissed at 2:08 PM.

The presiding judge then noted that the request of defense attorney Baumgart for his statement to be recorded in the protocol was accepted, though not very detailed.

The proceedings were adjourned at 2:11 PM.

The next trial day will be on February 11, 2026, 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