Inside the Alaa M. Trial #105: The Defense’s Last Dispute

TRIAL OF ALAA M.

Higher Regional Court – Frankfurt, Germany

Trial Monitoring Summary #105

Hearing Date: May 20, 2025 

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 continues to provide a summary of the proceedings while redacting certain details to protect witness privacy and to preserve the integrity of the trial.]

SJAC’s 105th trial monitoring report details day 184 of the trial of Alaa M. in Frankfurt, Germany. The session opened with Defense Counsel Endres sharply criticizing the Court for the late disclosure of crucial legal information, which was provided only shortly before the evidentiary phase concluded. The Defense argued that this short notice hindered their ability to respond effectively, especially given the difficulties of gathering evidence in Syria to establish an alibi for the Accused. The Presiding Judge firmly rejected these objections, emphasizing the extensive prior investigation and the need to adhere to the trial schedule.

Following further debate, the Defense requested a two-week extension to review new legal advice and consult with Alaa M. and his family, citing the Accused’s prolonged pre-trial detention as justification for the additional time. The Court granted this request by rescheduling and consolidating the dates for the Joint Plaintiffs’ and Defense’s closing statements.

The last part of the session focused on motions to limit prosecution. Several Plaintiffs consented to narrowing the charges, and Senior Public Prosecutor Zabeck moved to terminate certain counts pursuant to Section 154 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court approved these motions, limiting prosecution to core charges related to crimes against humanity by killing and war crimes by torture and killing, while excluding offenses such as serious bodily harm and deprivation of liberty.

Trial Day 184 – May 20, 2025

The session began with Defense Counsel Endres criticizing the Court for the late disclosure of certain legal information. Although detailed, it was provided only shortly before the conclusion of evidentiary proceedings. From the Defense's perspective, it was unclear why the information had not been shared several months earlier. Defense Counsel Endres objected that the short notice had deprived the Defense of any opportunity to respond appropriately. He also emphasized that, given the political situation in Syria, additional time was needed to obtain evidence, especially to prove that the Accused had been in a different location at the time of the alleged incidents. Defense Counsel Endres noted that Alaa M. had reacted firmly to certain witnesses during several sessions by saying: “I don't know this man!”

The Presiding Judge responded just as firmly, saying that he considered the Defense’s efforts a waste of time. The Court had thoroughly examined the evidence, he emphasized, and described how extensive the investigation had been. If the Defense now wanted to search for witnesses or alibis in Syria, it would be three years too late. Motions could still be submitted and would be processed, but the Court wanted to stick to the planned schedule.

Defense Counsel Bonn then intervened, arguing that the Accused still had much to discuss with the Defense. The Defense had only received the information on May 15, 2025, and there had not been enough time to review it before today’s session.

Thereupon, Senior Public Prosecutor Zabeck reminded the Court that the schedule leading up to the verdict had been set for months. The Defense had repeatedly been asked whether any further motions or submissions were still to be expected. Against this background, she expressed no understanding for the Defense’s current request.

Defense Counsel Bonn responded that the legal notice in question contained new information raised by the Accused. It was the Defense’s duty to follow up on this and address it accordingly.

***

[15-minute break]

***

The Presiding Judge clarified that the charges had not changed as a result of the legal notice, only the assessment of causality in connection with the death of P8’s brother, [redacted name], had been adjusted. The Court did not want to be completely harsh.

Defense Counsel Endres then spoke up again and requested an extension of two weeks. He indicated that he would have explained the reasons for his request at the beginning of the session if he had not been interrupted so rudely by the Presiding Judge. He further asked the Presiding Judge to let him finish speaking in the future and not interrupt him as if he were a complete idiot. He recalled that shortly before the taking of evidence began, the Presiding Judge had suggested to Alaa M. that a confession might be in his interest. In this context, the Defense also felt it was necessary to discuss the new legal advice with the close relatives, which was, according to Defense Counsel Endres, clearly part of the Defense's responsibilities.

The Presiding Judge then clarified that it had not been his intention to insult Defense Counsel Endres. He had simply gained the impression that the Defense was now planning to search for witnesses. In response to the Presiding Judge’s question as to why the new information had not been discussed earlier that morning, Defense Counsel Endres explained that a meeting had in fact taken place, but that additional time was needed. The Presiding Judge then asked what exactly the Defense hoped to achieve in the requested two weeks, particularly as the Court had already streamlined the factual issues. He further emphasized that the fact that the Accused had been in pre-trial detention for five years highlighted the urgency of the charges.

Defense Counsel Endres replied that the Defense first wanted to discuss the matter with Alaa M. Defense Counsel Bonn added - addressing the Presiding Judge - that it was completely natural that the Accused needed time to talk to his relatives. After all, he had been in pre-trial detention for almost five years and had a legitimate need to discuss all evidence and information in detail. When asked by the Presiding Judge whether such a consultation could take place during the course of this week, the Defense confirmed. However, the Presiding Judge emphasized that a problem could arise if, for example, a closing statement was planned, which would have to be discussed beforehand. The session was then briefly interrupted as Defense Counsel Bonn wanted to consult with Alaa M. on this regard.

***

[10-minute break]

***

Following the break, the discussion on scheduling the remaining trial days resumed. Considering the upcoming dates for closing arguments, Plaintiff’s Counsel Bahns suggested that the Defense meet with their client at 9:00 AM for consultation.

It was then recorded in the protocol that Defense Counsel Endres explained that a meeting with Alaa M.’s family and among the Defense team was necessary in light of the newly provided information. For this reason, the previously scheduled date for the closing statement of the Public Prosecution on May 22, 2025 could not be maintained. Furthermore, Defense Counsel Bonn noted that the Defense would meet with the Accused in pre-trial detention on Thursday, May 22, 2025. He then suggested that the closing arguments of the Plaintiffs’ Counsels and the Defense could be held on the same day, which was agreed upon by all parties to the proceedings. Defense Counsel Bonn also proposed a new schedule, according to which the originally planned main hearing date would be cancelled to allow the Defense sufficient time for a preparatory consultation with the Accused. Accordingly, the Public Prosecution’s closing statement would take place on May 27, 2025; the Plaintiffs’ Counsels would present their arguments on the morning of June 5, 2025, followed by the Defense in the afternoon. The Accused would then read the last word.

The session then moved on to the part concerning the statements and motions to limit prosecution. Plaintiff’s Counsel Bahns submitted a supplementary statement by his client P8 to the Court, which he then read out. He explained that the motion had been addressed directly to the Presiding Judge for declaratory reasons. In it, P8 declared his consent to the limitation of the prosecution in Case 12 of the indictment to the offense of a crime against humanity by killing pursuant to Section 7 (1) (1) German Code of Crimes Against International Law (GCCAIL) in conjunction with Section 154a (1) (1) and (2) German Code of Criminal Procedure (GCCP).

Subsequently, the other Plaintiffs’ Counsels also declared their consent to the limitation of prosecution: Plaintiff’s Counsel Reiger on behalf of [redacted name], P1, in Case 16, and Plaintiff’s Counsel Bessler on behalf of [redacted name], P4, in Case 17.

The Presiding Judge then asked Senior Public Prosecutor Dr. Zabeck whether a motion would be submitted pursuant to Section 154 of the GCCP. Dr. Zabeck consented to the Court’s request dated May 15 and, on behalf of the Federal Public Prosecutor General, partially terminating the prosecution pursuant to Section 154 (1) and (2) of the GCCP.

The Presiding Judge then clarified that the corresponding motions had been approved and formally entered into the Court’s record. He subsequently announced the Court’s decision:

1. The prosecution is terminated at the request of the Federal Public Prosecutor General and the Federal Court of Justice pursuant to Section 154 (1) (1) and (2) GCCP, with regard to Cases 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13 to 15.
2. The prosecution is limited pursuant to Section 154 (1) (1) and (2) GCCP, with the consent of the Federal Public Prosecutor General, the Federal Court of Justice, and P8 (Case 12), P1 (Case 16), and P4 (Case 17).
3. a) Factual Limitation (Case 16):

Within the meaning of Section 154 (1) (1), first alternative, of the GCCP, the indictment in Case 16 is to focus on a specific sub-complex described by P1 as a single incident of ill-treatment.
This began with P1’s removal from the cell or assembly room of the military hospital and initially involved collective beatings by one or more individuals accompanying the Accused in the so-called “torture room.” It was followed by hanging from the wall or ceiling, further beatings and verbal abuse involving the Accused, who used a baton or a stick-like object, and ultimately burned P1 with ignited disinfectant or alcohol.
The fire was extinguished by a companion named [redacted name], who also kicked the witness with his shoe. The witness was then returned to the cell or assembly room.

b) Legal Limitation

The Court intends, pursuant to Sect. 154a (1) (1), second alternative of the German Code of Criminal Procedure, to limit prosecution to selected core charges under the German Code of Crimes Against International Law. Among others, the offenses of crimes against humanity by torture pursuant to Sect. 7 (1) (5) GCCAIL in Case 18, infliction of serious bodily or mental harm (Sect. 7 (1) (8) GCCAIL in Cases 1, 2, 11, 17), and deprivation of liberty (Sect. 7 (1) (9) GCCAIL in Cases 12 and 16 to 18) are excluded from prosecution.

The focus of the prosecution lies on crimes against humanity by killing (Case 12, Section 7 (1) (1) GCCAIL), war crimes by torture (Cases 16 and 17, Section 8 (1) (3) GCCAIL), and war crimes by killing (cases 17 and 18, Section 8 (1) (1) GCCAIL). Except for the charge of murder on base motives in case 18 (Section 211 (2) group 1, variant 4 German Criminal Code (GCC)), no other offenses under the GCC are pursued.

More specifically, prosecution is limited in the following cases: in Cases 1 and 2, torture and the attempt to deprive a person of the ability to reproduce are prosecuted as crimes against humanity; in Cases 3, 5, 8, and 11, torture as crimes against humanity; in Case 12, murder as well as torture as crimes against humanity; in Case 16, torture as crime against humanity and torture as war crimes through the same act; in Case 17, torture as crime against humanity and torture as war crime; and in Case 18, murder as crime against humanity, murder as a war crime, and the charge of murder for base reasons pursuant to Sect. 211 (2) group 1, variant 4 GCC. 

The proceedings were adjourned at 4:05 PM.

The next trial day will be on May 27, 2025, 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