Inside the Alaa M. Trial #106: The Prosecution’s Closing Statement

TRIAL OF ALAA M.

Higher Regional Court – Frankfurt, Germany

Trial Monitoring Summary #106

Hearing Date: May 27, 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 106th trial monitoring report details day 185 of the trial of Alaa M. in Frankfurt, Germany. In today’s session, the Prosecution demanded a life sentence for Alaa M., citing two murders as well as numerous other counts of torture and abuse. The Prosecution portrayed Alaa M. as a regime-loyal doctor who weaponized his medical authority to torture, humiliate, and kill detainees. Far from being a passive bystander, he was depicted as an active, ideologically driven participant in a system of repression. Witnesses described him as arrogant, cruel, and emotionally detached; someone who laughed during torture, mocked the injured, and took pride in his brutality. His actions were not only deliberate but carried out with medical expertise, violating the very ethics of his profession.

Multiple testimonies painted military hospitals, particularly in Homs, as places of horror rather than healing. Those were sites where detainees were blindfolded, shackled, starved, and treated as subhuman. The killings of two detainees, one with epilepsy denied proper care, and another beaten to death to assert dominance, were classified as crimes against humanity, war crimes, and murder. Despite attempts to downplay his role or discredit witnesses, the Prosecution presented a compelling case based on consistent, credible, and emotionally powerful accounts, as well as digital evidence and expert analysis. Ultimately, the Prosecution concluded that Alaa M. acted with full intent and awareness, driven by loyalty to the Assad regime and a thirst for control. His crimes were not isolated incidents but part of a broader, systematic attack on civilians. By using his role as a physician to harm rather than heal, he became complicit in some of the most serious crimes under international and German law.

The Prosecution concluded by requesting a conviction for multiple counts of crimes against humanity, torture, war crimes, and related offenses, emphasizing the particular gravity of Alaa M.’s guilt. It also sought preventive detention, withdrawal of his work permit, and that the Court impose the trial costs on the Accused.

 Trial Day 185 – May 27, 2025

In today’s session, the Prosecution delivered its closing statement. Due to the presence of a cameraman, the Accused entered the courtroom with his face covered, wearing a winter jacket with the hood up and resting his head on the table. All parties to the proceedings were present. Apart from its closing argument scheduled for June 5, 2025, the Defense declared that it would not make any further statements. The Presiding Judge then inquired whether all parties have had sufficient time to review the evidence from Trial Day 183 held on May 15, 2025. This was unanimously confirmed. The Court subsequently determined that the taking of evidence was now closed by mutual agreement pursuant to Sect. 273 (1) (a) of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (GCCP), as no formal or substantive objections had been raised. According to this provision, the court record of the hearing must also reflect the course, content, and outcome of any negotiated agreement pursuant to Sect. 257 (c) GCCP, as well as compliance with related information and instruction duties or note explicitly if no such agreement was made.

Afterwards, the Presiding Judge gave the Prosecution the floor. He asked whether a break would be possible after about an hour. Federal Public Prosecutor Zabeck confirmed, indicated that she would give an appropriate signal in due course, and began reading out the closing statement. She started by welcoming those present and stating that she would begin by outlining the context, an inhumane attack carried out by the Syrian government. She emphasized that the subject of these criminal proceedings was crimes under the German Code of Crimes Against International Law (GCCAIL). It was the responsibility of all parties to the proceedings to clarify both the acts themselves and their broader context, marked by the regime’s reign of terror and atrocities. The Syrian population, she added, remained at risk. The extent of the violence had become evident over the course of the trial, including through Prof. Rothschild’s expert report, which contained photos of the most severe physical abuse. The large number of attacks on civilians and the disturbing images of emaciated bodies — examples of systematic “leaving to die” — made individual fates visible, which were illustrative of the overall events. Zabeck recalled the image of a deceased man whose body showed signs of abuse on nearly every part.

Dr. Zabeck further referred to the testimony of witness [redacted name], P19: “I have experienced times when I envied those who had died.” [Redacted name], P57, also testified that after his time in Tishreen Military Hospital, he longed to be transferred back to the notorious Sednaya torture prison. If witnesses were unable to continue speaking, it was because they were reminded of victims who had been tortured or killed in front of them. Over the course of 186 trial days, more than 50 witnesses and several experts were heard, supplemented by numerous reports and chat logs. The Prosecution emphasized that the investigation had been necessary, despite the lack of prospect of legal clarification in the country of origin and despite the long duration. The taking of evidence showed how laborious such an investigation can be. According to the Prosecution, it is an important signal that international criminal law in Germany has staying power.

The Prosecution continued with the hearing of evidence and began with the personal circumstances of the Accused: He is a Syrian citizen, born on [redacted time], in Homs and of Christian faith. After studying medicine at the University of [redacted location], he began his specialist medical training as a civilian doctor at Homs Military Hospital on [redacted time], 2010. At the end of 2011, he moved to Damascus to work at al-Mazzeh Hospital. He completed his training in 2015 and received a visa for Germany. He obtained his German license to practice orthopedics in Saxony in 2019. Alaa M. is married and has two children. He was arrested on June 20, 2020, in [redacted location]; until that time, he had no criminal record in Germany.

In establishing the facts of the case, the Prosecution explained that the acts charged against Alaa M. were committed in the context of the violent suppression of the Arab Spring protests in Syria. After the start of demonstrations in the city of Daraa in March 2011, the Syrian regime took targeted action against opposition forces. The “Central Crisis Management Cell” was tasked with combating the uprisings from that point onward. From April 20, 2011, at the latest, violence was systematically used against so-called “conspirators.” Soldiers and intelligence agents used tear gas, batons, and live ammunition. Detainees were regularly tortured in order to intimidate the opposition. From the end of 2011, the previously peaceful protests developed into an armed uprising, and by 2012, into a civil war. The security forces followed a recurring pattern: peaceful demonstrators were arrested in raids, fleeing individuals were shot, and detainees were held without a legal hearing or trial.

The Syrian secret service, which was directly subordinate to the Ministry of Defense, played a central role in this context. Under its responsibility, underground detention and torture facilities were established. Torture practices also extended to military hospitals and civilian institutions. Detainees were denied contact with the outside world and held in overcrowded cells under catastrophic hygienic conditions; toilets were used as sources of drinking water. Rape and sexual abuse – in some cases committed by medical staff – as well as extrajudicial executions and medically unnecessary interventions were described as commonplace. The method known as “Shabeh” (hanging from the ceiling while being physically abused) was also mentioned.

Federal Public Prosecutor Zabeck continued the closing statement by reporting on the catastrophic conditions in Branch 261 of the Military Intelligence Services in Homs. The Military Hospital there played a special role, as it administered medical services and was under the authority of the Ministry of Defense. It was also specifically geared toward the treatment of demonstrators. From 2011 onward, civilians were tortured and interrogated there. Medical staff in various military hospitals had access to potassium ampoules, enabling them to kill detainees at any time. Civilian prisoners were brought to Military Hospital 608 or Abdelkader Ash-Shaqfa Hospital and were bound together, blindfolded, shackled, tagged with numbers, stripped down to their underwear, and left to fend for themselves. Medical treatment only took place if it served training purposes, was intended to extract information about the opposition, or to keep detainees alive for further torture. The dead were stored on the floor, photographed, and handed over to relatives with a falsified cause of death. Medical treatment was ordered and monitored by the intelligence services.

The Prosecution then explained the facts of the case and the offenses the Accused was charged with. These relate to the acts limited to cases 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 16 through 18, as determined on May 15 and 20, 2025, pursuant to Sect. 154 and Sect. 154(1) of the GCCP. These provisions allow for the partial termination of proceedings where prosecution of certain charges is considered unnecessary, for instance, when the Accused has already received or is expected to receive a more severe sentence for other offenses. First, the Prosecution addressed the Accused’s activities in the Homs Military Hospital in 2011. From January 28, 2010, to the end of November 2011, he completed his specialist medical training there and worked in the emergency room, orthopedics, and trauma surgery departments. Even at the beginning of the protests, Alaa M. had shown open admiration for the ruler Bashar al-Assad and belonged to a group of doctors loyal to the regime. Together with [redacted name] and [redacted name], the Accused enjoyed special privileges as part of this group, such as unrestricted access to prisoners. In online chats, he described critics of the regime as “vermin” and denied them the right to freedom. He also participated in acts of torture within the military hospital.

Case 1 concerned a particularly cruel act of torture against a boy aged 14 or younger who had been admitted to the military hospital in the summer of 2011. While military personnel were holding him, the Accused entered the emergency room. The boy tearfully begged Alaa M. to release him, saying that God would reward him. The Accused then asked whether he thought he was a man, pulled down his trousers, poured disinfectant over his genital area, and set it on fire. The resulting loss of fertility was accepted approvingly. In Case 2, the torture involved a man from the al-Khalidiyyah district of Homs who had been admitted under the pretext of being a “terrorist.” Alaa M. allegedly accused the man of being against the president and then set his genitals on fire. The victim suffered from severe, infected injuries. Between April and November 2011, Alaa M. also took part in the torture of at least four unidentified individuals. In Case 3, the Accused allegedly called a patient a “terrorist,” beat him with a urine catheter, insulted him by saying “Your sister’s vagina and you are the brother of a whore,” and continued to hit him, including at least twice against the head. In Case 5, he allegedly struck a patient, who was being held by another person, with his fist and slammed his face against a wall. In Case 8, he reportedly crushed the patient’s genitals. The pressure is said to have lasted at least one second. In Case 11, Alaa M. allegedly performed surgery on a broken thigh without anesthesia. Anesthetic was administered only after the procedure had already begun.

Further abuse was committed by the Accused in Branch 261 of the Military Intelligence Services in Homs. The Prosecution then explicitly addressed Case 12, which concerns witness [redacted name], P8. On November 23, 2011, P8, his brother [redacted name], and their cousin [redacted name], P11 were arrested and taken to a prison in Homs, Branch 261. P8 and his brother were accused of participating in demonstrations; P11 was accused of harboring them. On November 24, 2011, P8’s brother suffered an epileptic seizure, from which he initially recovered. Fellow prisoners told P8 that doctors were expected the next day. P8 informed the Accused about his brother’s condition and asked him for help. Alaa M. then punched P8 in the face and had the brothers taken back to their cell. The brother’s condition worsened, and he suffered three additional seizures. P8 again turned to the Accused for help. By that point, his brother was no longer able to walk on his own.

On November 26, 2011, the Accused returned, this time accompanied by [redacted name]. He asked P8 about his brother’s medication, and P8 gave him the name. P8’s brother was then beaten again. He was first slapped, then struck on the head and hit with a hose.

Alaa M., due to his medical training, was aware that physical violence could exacerbate epilepsy. Nevertheless, he gave the witness’s brother a pink tablet. P8 initially refused to allow his brother to take it, as he recognized it was not the right medication. The Accused knew the brother could die and willingly accepted this outcome. About 15 minutes after taking the tablet, P8’s brother stopped moving. His condition continued to worsen over the following hours. On November 27, 2011, he died. The body was removed before lunch. The Prosecution concluded by emphasizing that the brother’s death was the result of the Accused’s actions.

Subsequently, acts committed in 2012 at Homs Military Hospital were recalled. In another case, witness [redacted name], P1, was asked for his name and origin at a military checkpoint in order to identify opposition members. Because of his surname and his origin from Ar-Rastan, he was identified as part of the opposition. In mid-June 2012, following a prison riot, P1 and fellow detainees — including witness [redacted name], P4, and a man named [redacted name] — were transferred first to the Central Prison in Homs and then to Homs Military Hospital. The conditions there were very poor. Between August and the end of September 2012, the witnesses were held for two to three weeks in a 20-square-meter room with 15 to 20 other people. Alaa M. beat, kicked, and insulted them. He took them out of the room two to three times and tortured them. In Case 16, concerning witness P1, the Accused entered the room again after two to three days and beat the witness. P1 was taken to a separate room, where he was tortured. He was hanged from the ceiling with ropes and chains so that his body was stretched like a bow. In this defenseless position, he was beaten. As he was lowered, fluids leaked from his mouth. The Accused poured liquid on the inside of his right upper arm and set it on fire. To this day, the witness suffers from back pain and a burn scar. A colleague of Alaa M. extinguished the flames but then stepped on the burn. Back in the cell, the witness continued to suffer from visible injuries and pain. In Case 17, concerning witness P4, a verbal exchange with the Accused took place after P4 saw signs of torture on P1. The situation escalated with insults, especially when P4 was asked about his origin and was called a traitor. Two to three days later, Alaa M. looked at one of P4’s wounds and said he knew how to “heal” it: by setting it on fire. Another nurse endangered [the health of] P4’s other arm. P4 was kicked in the mouth and hit on the head with a baton, which caused him to lose consciousness. He was told that he should be left to die until he stinks. Three of his teeth remained broken and were later treated in [redacted location].

Case 18 concerned the killing by torture of P1's and P4's fellow prisoner [redacted name]. Two to three days after having tortured P4, Alaa M. entered the cell where [redacted name], despite his strong and muscular build, was defenseless as his arms were tied. Alaa M. asked him where he was from. [Redacted name] answered Talkalakh and was therefore insulted as a son of a bitch. [Redacted name] then began insulting Bashar al-Assad and tried to attack the Accused. Alaa M. and two companions took him to a separate room, restrained him in the middle, and beat him. The Accused struck him with a black stick until he fainted. Alaa M. then returned with a syringe, injected [redacted name] in the left arm, and told him to greet the “whores.” Later, [redacted name] complained of pain to fellow prisoners, began to tremble, and white fluid came out of his mouth. Before he died, he asked to greet his mother. The Prosecution emphasized that the Accused wanted to demonstrate with this act that even a muscular man like [redacted name] was no match for him.

 ***

[10-minute break]

 After a short break, the Prosecution continued with the assessment of the evidence and emphasized that the determination of the offences was based on a large number of witness testimonies, expert opinions, chats, and documents. The Prosecution further explained that the Accused had provided detailed information about himself and the allegations. His deviating testimonies appeared implausible due to the evidence presented. He had tried to weaken the accusations, which led to inconsistencies.

In his testimony on Homs Military Hospital, Alaa M. testified that he had begun his specialist training on January [redacted time], 2010, and had spent time at Homs Military Hospital until November of the same year. He had worked in various departments there. In 2011, he was in charge of the outpatient department and trauma surgery and was on duty in the 24-hour emergency room about once a month. He had not been on duty outside the hospital and had no knowledge of civilian doctors who were close to the military. When he returned from a sick leave due to a hernia, the situation at the Military Hospital was very chaotic. As a civilian, it was no longer possible to move freely around the city because of the war.

The Accused reported that the situation in Damascus was better than in Homs. He therefore applied for a transfer in October 2011 and traveled to Damascus on November 23, 2011, to introduce himself. Before starting work, he had one week to settle his affairs, including applying for a debt exemption certificate. After that, he never returned to Homs. From November 28, 2011, he worked as a doctor at al-Mazzeh Hospital in Damascus and lived there in a shared flat until April or May 2012. His work in al-Mazzeh ended on December 5, 2012, when he was shot in his leg. From February to May 2013, he continued his specialist medical training in Tartus. At the beginning of July 2014, he was informed that he had to work in the Harasta Military Hospital. He initially worked there but then stopped attending for fear of further injuries. He was then discharged in August 2014. In September 2014, he worked briefly in a civilian hospital in Talkalakh.

In 2015, he applied for a visa at the German embassy in Beirut and entered Germany on [redacted time], 2015. He received his provisional license to practice medicine in Saxony in [redacted time] 2015. Since then, he has worked in various clinics, most recently in [redacted location]. The Prosecution explained that the Accused had deliberately avoided the word “military” in his employment references as he knew that this would be viewed negatively in Germany. Regarding his political views, Alaa M. said he felt sorry for the prisoners and that his heart had bled. After the Facebook chats were presented in court, he corrected his statement and said that he knew nothing about politics due to one-sided reporting.

With regard to the structures and developments in Homs, the Accused said that he had treated injuries sustained by soldiers and rather minor injuries sustained by detained demonstrators. The prisoners were not known by name; they received numbers and were shackled to the beds in the rooms. Alaa M. testified that he had occasionally seen prisoners being beaten. He had seen hematomas on patients but had not been able to identify their cause. He attributed the deaths of patients to poor treatment.

The Accused denied all of [redacted name]’s allegations. Alaa M. claimed during his testimony in court that [redacted name] had given several interviews over the years and had accused him. Alaa M. described [redacted name] as an Islamist, recalling that he had been a resident in urology, one year younger than the Accused. According to Alaa M., [redacted name], a Sunni, saw him smoking outside the hospital during Ramadan and kindly asked him to refrain. When the Accused refused to do so, an argument ensued. While working at the al-Mazzeh hospital, [redacted name] called him and asked him to help in the field hospital. The Accused refused once more. The Prosecution pointed out that Alaa M. had repeatedly claimed during the main hearing that all reporting was linked to [redacted name] — including a German media report in cooperation with [redacted information]. The Accused attributed incriminating witness testimonies to a conspiracy by [redacted name]. According to Alaa M., [redacted name] had lost family members and therefore hated Christians. Alaa M. also claimed that he himself had not entered Homs since November [redacted time], 2011. Pictures of him have been circulating on the internet since 2018. Although the Accused recognizes that witness P57 was actually tortured, M. is of the opinion that P57 was suggestively influenced in his recognition of Alaa M. as his tormentor.

The Prosecution relied on various witness testimonies and the findings of expert witness Professor Berger to establish the Accused's personal conduct [note: for the details of Prof. Berger’s testimony on the forensic-psychiatric evaluation of the Accused, see Trial Report #97]. The Prosecution emphasized that no further offences after the aforementioned acts could be clearly established until Alaa M.’s entry into Germany in 2015. Regarding the assessment of evidence in connection with the events in Syria, the Prosecution referred to the detailed explanation and analysis provided by Islamicist expert Dr. Steinberg [note: for his testimony, see Trial Report #55], the medical report by Dr. Rothschild on the Caesar photographs showing over 6,800 deceased individuals [note: for his testimony, see Trial Report #42], and contributions from Chris Engels - Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA) [note: for his testimony, see Trial Report #80], BKA lead investigator Deußing [note: Deußing testified several time during this trial, for details regarding the Caesar Files, see Trial Report #48], and the ethnological assessment by Turmann from June 1, 2019 in the course of a self-reading procedure. In this context, a document whose authenticity was convincingly established by Chris Engels (CIJA) was cited, as it aligned with the documented course of the conflict. Dr. Rothschild also convincingly argued that the bodies depicted in the Caesar files were victims of systematic abuse.

The role of military hospitals was further substantiated by ethnologist Turmann, as well as by witnesses [redacted name], P12, and [redacted name], P51, both of whom worked as medical staff in such facilities between 2011 and 2012. They testified that detainees were kept blindfolded. Witnesses [redacted name], P36, and P51 gave matching accounts regarding the prisoners' malnutrition, inadequate medical care, and the pervasive smell of corpses. Similarly, witnesses [redacted name], P54 and [redacted name], P40, described the conditions as catastrophic. Witness 10 [anonymized by the Court for security reasons], [redacted name], P38, [redacted name], P18, and [redacted name], P51, further testified that detainees were treated not as patients, but as enemies. The full extent of the horror became particularly evident in the testimony of P51, who recalled how living prisoners were taken to the cold storage room on the orders of [redacted name]. According to P51, the hospital resembled a slaughterhouse. Witness 10 reinforced this image by describing people who were blindfolded, naked, and chained to beds with rusty chains; scenes that took place in the general surgery department and were even captured on video. All witnesses showed clear signs of emotional distress as they recounted what they had seen and experienced.

 ***

[15-minute break]

***

 After the break, Federal Public Prosecutor Schlepp took over from her colleague Zabeck and continued the closing statement by presenting the assessment of evidence. She emphasized that numerous witness testimonies contradicted those of the Accused. She also pointed to the cultural context, explaining that the cruelty of the Syrian regime caused a different form of narrative shaped by the way people were raised. Contradictions between witnesses, she argued, were explainable. Many found it difficult to speak in the first person, as this is considered impolite in Syria. Witnesses P19, P57, P1, and P11 had gone through traumatic experiences that they would have preferred to suppress. The Prosecution stressed that the victim witnesses consistently conveyed the sense that their survival had not been guaranteed at any time. They were able to determine the timing of events by observing the position of the sun, the type of food, or the specific torture methods used. The consistency of their accounts over several days was also emphasized. Testimonies that matched perfectly down to the last detail would have suggested prior collusion.

The Prosecution therefore concludes that there is no evidence of an unjustified eagerness to incriminate, and that the witnesses demonstrated a sincere desire for justice, although their recollections were at times impaired. As there was neither undue influence nor inconsistencies among the witnesses, the Defense's assertion of a deliberate intent to incriminate must be strongly rejected. Witness P4 was cited as an example, who stressed during his testimony that his arm, which had been set on fire by Alaa M., burned only for a short time. The Prosecution also emphasized that the witnesses consistently distinguished between injuries caused by the regime in other contexts and those directly attributable to the Accused. Moreover, several witnesses reported that their testimony had led to confrontations with family members in Syria. Additionally, the Prosecution highlighted evidence of the Accused's loyalty to Bashar al-Assad, as demonstrated through Facebook messages and posts. Witness [redacted name], P15, a former colleague of Alaa M., testified that the Accused was heard listening to regime slogans. Another witness (name withheld by the Court) testified that the Accused had a picture of Bashar al-Assad displayed in his car. According to witness P54, Alaa M. remarked in 2012 that demonstrators should be stopped with weapons. P54 also had the impression that the Accused, along with the [redacted name] cousins, was part of a group of doctors who were favored by the regime.

The starting point for the acts in Case 1 was the testimony of Witness 10. The Prosecution emphasized that there were no doubts regarding his credibility. He had linked his account to emotional experiences. The quality of his testimony stood out due to unusual details and a comprehensive main narrative. In Case 1, he testified that the victim — a boy who, according to the Court, was at most 14 years old — had no hair on his face or legs. Witness 10's testimony was confirmed by witnesses P12 and P15. The burning of the genitals of a man from al-Khalidiyyah was established through the statements and testimonies of [redacted name], P15, and Prof. Dr. Rothschild. However, [redacted name] could not be heard by the Court. The chats between [redacted name] and [redacted name], P52, therefore formed the basis of the evidence. Although [redacted name]’s statements had only limited probative value, they were consistent. In his chats with P52, he gave detailed accounts. The acts could be temporally linked to the events in Ar-Rastan. This assessment is based on the testimony of witness P15, who reported burns on a patient whose injuries, in his view, could not have been older than two to three days. Witnesses [redacted name], P25 and P18 learned of Alaa M.'s actions through [redacted name].

The Prosecutor further highlighted that all the witnesses differentiated between their own observations and information received from other sources. In the overall view of the testimonies by [redacted name], P18, P25 and P15, it became clear that the person concerned was the man from al-Khalidiyyah – not the boy described by Witness 10. The allegations of genital bruising and beatings with a urinary catheter were essentially based on the testimony of witness 10. He particularly remembered the laughter of the Accused during the incident involving genital bruising. The fact that a medical procedure was performed partly without anesthetics was also based on the testimonies of P15, P18, and Witness 10. P15 described how he had been in the doctors’ room with his colleague [redacted name], when Alaa M. entered and proudly announced that he had performed an operation on a detainee from start to finish by himself. This statement remained vivid in the witnesses’ memory, especially because the Accused was still undergoing specialist medical training at the time and would not have been allowed to operate without supervision. The testimony of Witness 10 was highly consistent, as he openly acknowledged memory gaps. According to Prof. Dr. Rothschild, femur fractures are oblique breaks that lead to displacement. While surgery without anesthesia is technically possible, it would be extremely painful – an indication that Alaa M. deliberately wanted to torture.

All witnesses showed openness in their communication with [redacted name]. The Prosecution stressed that the taking of evidence had shown the Accused to have clearly aligned himself with the regime, whereas [redacted name] had opposed it. It therefore seemed unlikely that [redacted name] would have wanted to persuade Alaa M. to work in the field hospital. The Prosecution interpreted this claim as part of the Accused's eagerness to incriminate [redacted name]: Alaa M. had attempted to portray him as a dangerous Islamist through a deliberate smear campaign. By contrast, [redacted name] was motivated by the desire to hold those responsible for what he had experienced. Furthermore, the Prosecution argued that it was hardly credible that Syrian witnesses would voluntarily expose themselves to danger before German courts due to past personal conflicts. The witnesses also clearly acknowledged when they had gaps in memory. Almost all of them described Alaa M. as humorous and kind, although even people close to him characterized him as boastful and self-important.

***

[1-hour break]

***

Upon return from the break, the Prosecution emphasized that the testimonies of P19 and P8, as well as a prisoner list seized by CIJA, served as key evidence. P19 and P8 provided detailed descriptions of the condition of the cells and the prisoners. Any minor contradictions were deemed irrelevant given the overall consistency of the testimonies. Regarding the immediate events of the crime, the accounts were free from suggestive influence by others. P8 had testified over six separate days and consistently described the events. His earliest testimony had been given five years earlier, on [redacted time], 2015, in [redacted location]. He reportedly first encountered the name of the Accused in a 2019 article by Zaman al-Wasl (زمان الوصل). Witness Anwar al-Bunni also credibly testified that he had received the account from P8. On August 5, 2020, during a prosecution hearing, P8 gave a detailed testimony about several key aspects: the treatment of fellow detainees; his first encounter with Alaa M.; the slap to his brother; the order given by the Accused to return both brothers to their cell; his brother’s epileptic seizures; and the reaction of Alaa M., who insulted, slapped, and kicked his brother in the head. P8 went on to describe his brother’s worsening condition and his death the following day.

Furthermore, the Prosecution stressed that witness testimonies must be consistent in essence, though it was understandable that not all details could be recalled due to the time elapsed. P8’s testimonies were nevertheless of high evidentiary quality, as he described in detail the circumstances of his detention, the state of the prison cells, the conditions faced by other detainees, the torture he experienced under the Assad regime, and his eventual release. Indicators of authenticity included the way P8 supported his brother, dragged him back into the cell, and later put his own socks on his brother’s feet after his death in an effort to keep him warm — unwilling to accept his passing. There were no doubts regarding P8’s credibility, and his testimony was corroborated by that of P11.

In 2020, P11 had seen journalistic reports concerning the death of his cousin, P8’s brother. During his interrogation by [redacted location] authorities, despite the achronological questioning, he gave consistent testimony. He also described the physical appearance of Alaa M., [redacted name], and the circumstances under which he had learned their names. P11 gave a coherent account of imprisonment and torture, clearly distinguishing between what he had experienced firsthand and what he had heard from others — a strong indicator of credibility. No irreconcilable contradictions existed between the testimonies of P8 and P11. Their accounts were further supported by P19, who, upon learning of Alaa M.'s arrest, contacted P23 and informed him that he was willing to testify.

P11 also provided credible details of his own detention and torture on November [redacted time], 2011, by [redacted name], and impressed with a high degree of detail. There were no doubts as to the credibility of his account. Additional witness testimonies confirmed that P11 already possessed, back in 2016, a note listing the names of the doctors involved and had declared that he would never forget them. The Prosecution further noted that Alaa M. had appeared in military uniform on multiple occasions in 2011, although he was a civilian doctor. P19 reported that P8 had told him his brother had been beaten with a hose and kicked in the head by the Accused. The timeframe of the brother’s death between November [redacted time], 2011 was reconstructed based on the testimonies of P8, P11, and P19; he most likely died on November [redacted time], 2011, as recorded by medical staff. Although it could not be conclusively determined how the Accused caused the death, three possibilities were presented: either the death was caused by the extreme stress and torture, by medication administered, or by a combination of both. In this context, it was highlighted that physical violence and psychological stress can intensify epileptic seizures and trigger what is known as status epilepticus.

It was also submitted that witnesses [redacted name], P28, and [redacted name], P26, could not recall the Accused mentioning that he had been transferred to Damascus or that he had stayed there alone. The Prosecution pointed out that the documents submitted by Alaa M. as proof of his alleged employment at al-Mazzeh Hospital during the relevant period were mere copies, not originals. Expert witness Dr. Steinberg explained that many types of official documents could be obtained for money in Syria. The absence of original documents was, according to the Prosecution, further evidence of the Accused’s implausibility. The submitted document was also marked by numerous grammatical errors. These were simple documents bearing only a basic stamp and concerned the employment relationships and time periods of the Accused Alaa M. The Prosecution emphasized that the origin of these documents remained opaque. Moreover, questions arose as to how Alaa M.'s father had gained access to personal information concerning witness P4. The testimony of witness P4 was also assessed in this context. Although the Defense had challenged the account of his detention and transfer to the Military Hospital, P4 described in detail, over the course of nine hearing days, the torture and conditions he endured. The Prosecution concluded that his credibility was not doubted.

***

[20-minute break]

***

The Prosecutor continued that witness P4 was questioned by employees of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF); all of his testimonies were consistent and coherent. He described the circumstances of the prison riot during Ramadan, his detention, the ill-treatment, and torture he endured, including the burning of his arm as well as his first encounter with Alaa M., the method by which an injection was administered to fellow detainee [redacted name], and [redacted name]’s subsequent death. On [redacted time], 2021, during his asylum proceedings, P4 had already reported his detention and mistreatment in Homs Military Hospital and the killing of another prisoner by injection by the Accused to the BAMF. Even though the interview was rather brief at the time due to the nature of asylum proceedings, the core elements of his testimony coincided with his later, significantly more detailed, account during the main hearing.

Witness P1 testified that he had also already reported the mistreatment and killing of a detainee by injection during his asylum hearing in 2021. However, due to the procedural context, his testimonies were more concise. In some instances, individual details deviated from earlier accounts, particularly from the [redacted location] interview protocol of [redacted time], 2020. These deviations concerned, for example, the timing of his first encounter with Alaa M. or the duration of the mistreatment. The taking of evidence showed that these inconsistencies were due to communication difficulties during the questioning in [redacted location]. The interpreter involved was not a native speaker and lacked formal language training. In relation to several passages, the witness said that he had not said what was recorded arguing that the interpreter had misunderstood him. The testimony of witness P1 during the main hearing was of particularly high evidentiary quality. He gave a coherent, detailed, and consistent account of his arrest, the conditions of his detention, the acts of torture, and the killing process. His narrative was fluent and plausible as he was able to reconstruct the stages of his imprisonment with precision. P1 testified on the abuse he suffered and witnessed at the hands of the Accused, the black mold in the cells where prisoners had to sleep on the hard floor wearing only their underpants. They were allowed to use the toilet only once a day; many prisoners defecated in their cells. His reproduction of conversations between the Accused and the prisoners underlined the immediacy of his experiences. For instance, before setting P4's arm on fire, the Accused announced he would now demonstrate how to disinfect wounds. He told [redacted name] that he was making himself big and declared he would send him to the whores after the latter had said: “I am bigger than you and your Assad.”

Witness P1 vividly described his own emotions as well as those of the other prisoners. After the killing of [redacted name], he, like the others, feared he would be next. P1 was aware of his own memory gaps and spoke openly about his uncertainties. For example, he could not say with certainty where the injection was administered to [redacted name] or who had determined his death. It was difficult to estimate the passage of time under conditions of extreme abuse: “If a person is repeatedly beaten to the point of unconsciousness, you can't estimate it exactly.” There were minor discrepancies between the testimonies of P1 and P4, but only with regard to peripheral aspects, such as the duration of detention, the wording of certain testimonies, or whether P4 had also been beaten with a stick. P1 credibly explained these variations by his focus on his own experience. Such differences are to be expected in light of the temporal distance and the subjective nature of perception. They argue against a collusive account.

The Prosecution emphasized that inconsistencies in details were understandable given the long time since the events. A key piece of evidence supporting the detention is a prison riot at the beginning of the fasting month between July 19 and August 18, 2012, which both witness P4 and expert witness Dr. Steinberg independently described. This supports the plausibility of a subsequent transfer of P1 and P4 from Homs Central Prison to Homs Military Hospital. Regarding the timing and content of their detention, there is no doubt that witnesses P4 and P1 were held together with [redacted name] in Homs Military Hospital for about two weeks, at some point between early August and the end of September 2012. This conclusion is based on the following evidentiary considerations: Both witnesses consistently testified that they were in Homs Central Prison at the beginning of Ramadan, during which the revolt occurred. The expert’s assessment corroborated this timeframe and the plausibility of the described sequence of transfers from Central Prison to Military Intelligence custody and later to the Military Hospital. Furthermore, the description of the subsequent transfers of the prisoners, detailing first the transfer to the prison run by the Military Intelligence Service, and after 15 to a maximum of 45 days, to Homs Military Hospital, was deemed plausible.

The fact that the acts against P1 and P4 occurred at the Homs Military Hospital is supported by several witness testimonies and also by the Accused’s own testimonies. P4 recalled seeing doctor and Major General [redacted name] there, who had inquired about the condition of the prisoners. This was confirmed by the Accused as well as by witnesses P15, P12, and [redacted name]. [Redacted name] was reportedly the head of the intensive care unit and had contact with detainees. Moreover, the description of a flammable liquid used for abuse, which was contained in a white bottle with a hose, matches the testimony of witness P18, who described disinfectants stored in such containers at the Homs Military Hospital.

The testimonies of witnesses [redacted name], P42, and [redacted name], P34, also contradict the Accused’s claim that he had not returned to Homs after November 2011. Despite his assertions to the contrary, several witnesses testified that he was regularly active in the Homs area throughout 2012. Particularly credible is the testimony of witness [redacted name], P49, who testified that he worked with the Accused at Homs Military Hospital in 2012.

The Prosecutor further argued that allegations of mistreatment by Alaa M. are corroborated by the testimonies of witnesses P40, P26, P28, P49, and P57. Additional evidence suggesting the Accused returned to Homs is provided by a chat message with [redacted name] dated December 8, 2011, which indicates his intent to return. Witnesses P28 and P26 further explained that temporary deployments of civilian doctors to various military hospitals were not uncommon. P57 also confirmed the existence of such assignments. He described in detail how he saw the Accused in the prisoner ward of the Tishreen Military Hospital in late 2012 or early 2013, where he allegedly killed two detainees via injection.

The findings regarding the death of prisoner [redacted name] are based on the eye-witness testimony of witnesses P4 and P1, as well as the assessment of expert witness Prof. Dr. Rothschild. According to the expert, the symptoms described by P4 were indicative of a dying process, likely due to a potassium injection. Although the witness P4 did not observe definitive signs of death, the forensic expert concluded that symptoms such as respiratory arrest, absent pulse, and cold skin pointed to an acute medical emergency. No medical assistance was provided, and [redacted name] was later removed in a body bag.

The general use of potassium injections as a method of killing in Homs Military Hospital in 2011 and 2012 is further supported by the testimonies of witnesses P15, P25, P34, P52, and [redacted name], who all recalled having heard of such incidents. In contrast, the testimony of witness [redacted name], P47, is of limited value. He could not confirm any detentions or mistreatment at Homs Military Hospital, testifying he had been a child in 2012 and had no clear memories. As such, his testimony neither supports nor refutes the testimonies of P1 and P4, who claimed to have been imprisoned with him. It remains unclear whether P47 fully engaged his memory of the events in question.

The overall body of evidence is not weakened by testimonies from other witnesses who claimed to have seen Alaa M. at al-Mazzeh Military Hospital in 2012 or who recounted spending leisure time with him in Damascus. These testimonies are, according to the Prosecution, vague, contradictory, or lack specificity regarding the relevant period. For example, witness [redacted name], P30, testified that he saw the Accused in Damascus weekly in 2012 but also claimed Alaa M. had no reason to travel to Homs — while simultaneously confirming that the Accused regularly visited his future wife in that region. P34 testified that he saw Alaa M. almost daily, but only when he was not on night shifts or traveling. He credibly added that the Accused visited his (then unofficial) fiancée whenever possible. Other former colleagues from al-Mazzeh Military Hospital likewise testified that they frequently saw the Accused there, yet also confirmed that he repeatedly traveled to Homs. For instance, P40 recalled that Alaa M. had been absent on multiple occasions due to vacation or illness.

Federal Public Prosecutor Zabeck then took the floor again. In her legal assessment, she explained that the criminal relevance of Alaa M.'s actions arose from various provisions of the GCCAIL and the GCC. Specifically, the Prosecution had legally assessed cases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12 and 16 to 18. It concluded that the Accused was guilty in two cases of a crime against humanity pursuant to Sect. 7 GCCAIL which penalizes acts such as killing, torture, or causing severe physical or mental harm when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. He was also guilty of a war crime pursuant to Sect. 8 (1)(1) GCCAIL, which criminalizes the killing of persons protected under international humanitarian law during an armed conflict, and of torture pursuant to Sect. 7 (1)(5) GCCAIL, which refers to the infliction of serious physical or mental suffering on persons in custody. In addition, the Prosecution argued that he was guilty of murder pursuant to Sect. 211 GCC, which defines murder as killing, for instance, out of base motives, with particular cruelty, or in a manner dangerous to the public.

As a contextual element for the classification as crimes against humanity, the Prosecution stressed that the acts had been committed as part of an extensive and systematic attack on the Syrian civilian population. Such an attack had existed at the latest since April 27, 2011, with the killing of demonstrators in the city of Daraa. Both requirements were fulfilled in the present case. A confirmation of revision dated April 29, 2011, supported this legal classification. There had been around 200 fatalities; the perpetrators had organized and systematically carried out the crimes. With regard to the context of the war crimes pursuant to Sect. 8 (1) (1)-(9) GCCAIL, the Prosecution explained that a non-international armed conflict, in which police and militia units fought against rebels, had existed since spring 2012 at the latest. Witness P4 and the fellow detainee [redacted name], who was killed, were to be classified as “persons to be protected” under international humanitarian law, as they had been detained because of their origin. The details heard by the Court on May 15, 2025, were particularly relevant for the verdict. Alaa M. had acted with full knowledge of both the political regime and the existing conflict during the entire period of the crime.

The Prosecution further argued that in Cases 12 and 18, Alaa M. acted with intent and was guilty of the crime against humanity in the form of killing pursuant to Sect. 7 (1) (1) GCCAIL. In Case 12, the killing also constituted a war crime pursuant to Sect. 8 (1)(1) GCCAIL and murder pursuant to Sect. 211 GCC. The killing of [redacted name], [P8’s brother] was attributable to the Accused, even if specific causality could not be fully clarified. However, the Prosecution argued that all variants of the act were capable of causing death, which Alaa M. had accepted despite his medical expertise. He had been aware that the victim suffered from epilepsy and was under considerable stress without medical supervision. Necessary medical care had not been provided, although the Accused had been aware that it was required – this violated the principle of no punishment without fault. In Case 18, according to the Prosecutor, Alaa M. was also guilty of murder out of base motives, as [redacted name] died as a result of his actions. In this context, he was guilty of a crime against humanity pursuant to Sect. 7 (1)(1) GCCAIL, a war crime pursuant to Sect. 8 (1)(1) GCCAIL, as well as murder pursuant to Sect. 211 (1) and (2) GCC. In particular, the criterion of base motives under the murder provision was fulfilled: the victim had been defenseless and humiliated, and the Accused had committed his act with particular reprehensibility – out of rage and with the declared aim of demonstrating to the other detainees that even a strong man like [redacted name] was helpless at his mercy.

In addition, the Prosecutor concluded that Alaa M. tortured detained opposition members in a total of nine cases. This constituted a crime against humanity by torture and a war crime by torture pursuant to Sect. 7 (1) (5) and Sect. 8 (1) (3) GCCAIL. The Prosecution emphasized that torture is more serious than simple bodily harm, as factors such as duration, severity, and consequences – both physical and psychological – must be taken into account. The cases in which the Accused set people on fire, operated on them without anesthetic, abused them, and verbally humiliated them were particularly serious. Mental abuse such as humiliation or insults had also been identified. Cases 1 and 2 also constituted the offence of deprivation of reproductive capacity. Due to the victim's age and because the actual effect could not be determined with certainty, an attempted offence was assumed in favor of the Accused even if he had accepted the loss of the ability to reproduce. The Federal Court of Justice has already taken a position on this.

The sentencing was determined in accordance with Sect. 52 (2) GCC, which states that if more than one criminal statute has been violated, the penalty is based on the statute prescribing the most severe punishment and must not fall below the minimum required by the other statutes and, for crimes against humanity and war crimes, in accordance with Sections 7 and 8 of the GCCAIL. The overall assessment led to the following mitigating factors: Alaa M. had no prior criminal record in Germany, had already spent five years in pre-trial detention, and the crimes had been committed more than twelve years ago. Nevertheless, every perpetrator must be aware that they will be held criminally accountable, regardless of their current place of residence.

Although the Accused was influenced by propaganda, ideological indoctrination, and the outbreak of civil war from 2012 onward, this is counterbalanced by the fact that he was not a member of the military but actively sought contact with repressive state structures on his own initiative. As a physician, he violated his professional duties through acts of deliberate humiliation and cruelty, amounting to crimes against humanity. The fact that his actions were directed against civilians and involved numerous serious offenses contributed to the severity of the sentence.

The Prosecution requested the following individual sentences:

• Torture of six unknown individuals pursuant to Sect. 7 (1) (5) GCCAIL: 5 years
• Case 1: Torture and deprivation of the ability to reproduce of a helpless juvenile detained by two soldiers: 11 years
• Case 2: Torture of a man from al-Khalidiya by means of genital burns: 10 years
• Cases 3, 5, 8: Beatings with a catheter, blows and kicks to the head, and genital injuries: 6 years each
• Case 11: Surgery performed without anesthesia: 9 years
• Case 12: Abuse of P8 with a tube-like instrument and the killing of his epileptic brother [redacted name]: life imprisonment
• Case 16: Witness P1 (19 years old) was hung from the ceiling, beaten, and had his arm set on fire: 11 years
• Case 17: Witness P4 was kicked and beaten in the torso, face, and skull, and burned on the elbow: 11 years
• Case 18: Killing of [redacted name]by injection while his hands were tied behind his back: life imprisonment

The Presiding Judge noted a mix-up between Cases 16 and 17, which was confirmed by the Prosecution. The request for life imprisonment in Case 18 was upheld. The Prosecution requested life imprisonment as the total sentence, emphasized the particular gravity of the guilt, and demanded the exclusion of parole after 15 years. Alaa M. had killed two people and committed eight other serious crimes, affecting at least eight victims. It was particularly severe that these acts were committed in the context of his medical profession, toward patients who had turned to him for help.

The Prosecution emphasized that Alaa M. had voluntarily served the Syrian regime for years and deliberately exploited political and institutional structures to gain access to a vulnerable population. The circumstances of the killings of [redacted name], [P8’s brother], and [redacted name] clearly weighed heavily against the Accused. Both victims died under cruel conditions and, like many others, were humiliated by him. P8 was forced to witness the death of his own brother.

In total, Alaa M. killed two people and committed eight counts of war crimes. These acts were directed at no fewer than eight individuals. According to the Prosecution, a suspended sentence after 15 years was unjustifiable, given the particular severity of the Accused’s guilt. It is especially reprehensible that the crimes were committed in the course of his medical work, targeting patients who had sought his assistance. Instead of fulfilling his professional duty to protect and care for others, Alaa M. systematically violated that duty and responded to pleas for help with violence. This conduct stood in direct contradiction to his ethical obligations as a doctor.

In addition to the custodial sentence, the Prosecution also requested preventive detention pursuant to Section 66 (2) GCC, arguing that both the material and formal requirements under Section 66 GCC had been met. Under this provision, preventive detention may be imposed if the convicted person has committed multiple serious offenses — each punishable by at least one year in prison — and has received a sentence of at least three years for one or more of them, provided there is a high probability of future serious violent offenses causing significant harm to others.

***

[15-minute break]

***

The Prosecution emphasized that even if a permanent or concrete decision regarding future conduct was not required, a clear propensity to commit serious crimes was evident. According to the indictment, this was based on an overall assessment of Alaa M.’s personality and behavior: repeated mistreatment of defenseless detainees, use of burning, beatings with medical instruments, and other forms of torture. The acts revealed an entrenched sadistic pattern, in which the accused adopted and personalized the regime’s methods of torture. The Prosecution stated that the Accused derived pleasure from inflicting pain and even bragged about inventing new methods of torture.

According to the expert opinion of Prof. Dr. Berger, the Accused suffered from a mental disorder characterized by narcissistic self-centeredness and non-sexual sadism. Although he was generally capable of controlling his impulses, he still posed a danger to the public. Despite stable family relationships and no further conspicuous behavior in Germany, the Prosecution emphasized that this was likely due only to the lack of opportunity to offend again. His continued dangerousness was evidenced by the extent of the crimes, the lack of empathy (e.g., calling prisoners "cockroaches"), and confirmed by the expert’s differentiated psychological analysis.

According to the Prosecution, the Accused had deliberately exploited the political situation in Syria and the conditions in military hospitals to gain access to detainees. The Prosecution added that he used his medical position to deliberately inflict burns and other injuries on prisoners, displaying clear narcissistic traits. The Prosecution also argued that the threat of losing his medical license, coupled with potential political persecution in Syria, increased the risk of recidivism. Given the severity and nature of the offenses, as well as the diagnosed sadistic traits, no lesser measure than a custodial sentence could be justified.

Alaa M. had actively sought connections with regime-affiliated doctors to gain access to detainees and was aware that such acts would not be prosecuted in Syria — unlike in Germany, where they are criminal offenses.

The Prosecution concluded its closing statement with the following five final motions:

1.      Conviction for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and murder: once for killing, once for torture, and eight additional counts for crimes against humanity in the form of torture, war crimes, and deprivation of reproductive ability

2.       Determination of the particular gravity of the guilt

3.       Ordering of preventive detention

4.       Withdrawal of the Accused’s work permit

5.       Imposition of court costs on the Accused.

The next trial day will be dedicated to the closing statements of the Plaintiffs’ Counsels and the Defense, including the last word of the Accused.

The proceedings were adjourned at 4:40 PM.

The next trial day will be on June 5, 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