Inside the Alaa M. Trial #107: The Plaintiffs’ and the Defense’s Closing Arguments – And Alaa M.’s Last Word
TRIAL OF ALAA M.
Higher Regional Court – Frankfurt, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #107
Hearing Date: June 5, 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 107th trial monitoring report covers day 186 of the trial of Alaa M. in Frankfurt, Germany. The day featured closing statements from Plaintiff’s Counsels Bahns, Bessler, and Reiger, each focusing on a different survivor’s account of torture and the alleged role of the Accused at Homs Military Hospital, as well as the closing arguments of Defense Counsels Al-Agi, Endres, and Bonn. Counsel Bahns opened with a tribute to P8’s deceased brother, demanding legal recognition of his death. He described how a trained doctor became complicit in systematic torture, ultimately causing the brother’s death after administering a suspicious tablet. Bahns called the crime a clear case of a killing as a crime against humanity.
Counsel Bessler highlighted the case of P4, who was beaten unconscious, had his teeth knocked out, and an infected wound set on fire allegedly by the Accused. He underlined the credibility of P4’s account despite attempts by the Defense to discredit it using questionable documents. Counsel Reiger, representing P1, who was tortured using the “Shabeh” method and burned after collapsing, described P1’s testimony as a courageous act of duty toward other victims. The identification of the Accused was bolstered not only visually, but also by his voice — which triggered an emotional reaction from P1 in court. Reiger supported the Prosecution’s legal assessment and recommended an eleven-year sentence tied to this case alone.
Defense Counsel Al-Agi then began his closing statement, opening with a personal reflection on his own suffering under the Syrian regime while stressing the need for fairness. He focused on Cases 12, 16, 17, and 18, arguing that if Alaa M. had indeed been transferred from Homs to Damascus by November 20, 2011, as supported by court documents and chat logs, then testimonies placing him at the hospital after that date were factually incorrect. The Defense Counsel further questioned witness credibility, citing contradictions in P8’s memory and identification, and argued that a keynote naming the Accused may have been fabricated. He raised similar doubts about P11, P19, and P4, pointing to inconsistencies, outside influence, and possible coordination. Defense Counsel Endres added that Alaa M. became a suspect only after media coverage in 2020 and criticized the expert psychological assessment presented by the Prosecution as lacking substance. He also argued that Alaa M. posed no risk of reoffending and should not remain in preventive detention. Defense Counsel Bonn concluded by asserting that official documentation confirmed the Accused’s transfer to Damascus in late 2011, making several witness allegations implausible. He reiterated that no credible evidence placed the Accused at Homs Military Hospital beyond that date. In Alaa M.’s last word, he expressed hope for a fair verdict.
Trial Day 186 – June 5, 2025
Today’s session started with Plaintiff’s Counsel Bahns opening his closing statement with the words:
“Dear Presiding Judge, distinguished Court, distinguished colleagues, dear Mr. M., I represent [redacted name] [P8], who joined the proceedings, and his brother [redacted name], who did not survive.”
He emphasized that his client's foremost concern was that his brother's death be fully addressed. On behalf of P8, he thanked the Court for its meticulous clarification, the linguistic expert, and interpreter Mr. Farrag for his dedicated work, as well as the interpreter’s deceased brother who had initially undertaken this role, and the Prosecution. After three years of proceedings, an explicit thank you was appropriate.
Plaintiff’s Counsel Bahns explained that his statement would be divided into a preliminary remark, the actual speech, and closing words from his client. He introduced his remarks with a reflection on the role of the joint plaintiff in such proceedings. One could cynically describe it as a role for paid trial monitors. He acknowledged that the accessory prosecution [joining the proceedings as a joint plaintiff] is at times viewed with skepticism by other parties and recalled that he himself had once shared such critical views from a defense counsel's perspective.
Nevertheless, the accessory prosecution has its justification: it transforms the injured party from a mere source of evidence into an active subject, enabling a form of self-empowerment and helping to overcome the role of passive victimhood. It brings the perspective of those affected into the trial and can even spark a process of confrontation with the Accused. While it can contribute to restoring law and order [German: Rechtsfrieden], such a goal appears hardly conceivable in the present constellation. Another important function lies in revealing structural and political contexts beyond the perpetrator's perspective, particularly relevant in international criminal law proceedings.
These proceedings are undeniably political, as shown by the charges brought under the German Code of Crimes Against International Law (GCCAIL). However, it was not the Plaintiff who politicized the case first; it was the Court itself that set standards through a thorough and open-ended evidentiary process. That a German court judges crimes committed in Syria on the basis of universal jurisdiction gives the proceedings foreign and domestic political significance. The joint action offers Syrian survivors additional legitimacy, supports historical contextualization, and sets an example for the still-outstanding reckoning with crimes committed by the al-Assad regime. The trial remained an existential borderline experience until the very end.
Plaintiff’s Counsel Bahns then turned to the actual closing statement. Regarding Case 12 of the indictment, he explained that the Arab Spring was the origin of this trial. He addressed the Accused directly: “You, Mr. M., have no idea what it means to take to the streets and hold up placards, knowing that there are snipers on the rooftops.” He rejected the portrayal of demonstrators as terrorists, noting that the terror stemmed from the regime and its supporters. Standing up to such a regime required immense courage. By late March 2011, protests had spread to Homs. The regime responded with massive repression: lockdowns, raids, and mass arrests. The Baba Amr district became the epicenter of resistance. P8, then 30 years old, lived a simple life as a construction worker, was the breadwinner for his family, and had only completed primary school. When asked about his stance toward the Assad regime, P8 explained that before the events, people were focused on survival, not politics. He was not politically active and took care of his epileptic brother. He only joined protests after witnessing the regime's escalating brutality, such as the deployment of tanks. He had made a promise to his mother to look after his sick brother. Eventually, the family took refuge with their cousin [redacted name], P11, in [redacted location].
On November 23, 2011, security forces stormed the house at gunpoint during the night. P8, his brother, and P11 were captured and dragged into a vehicle with their T-shirts pulled over their heads. The brother’s mother was not allowed to provide medication for her epileptic son and was told the brothers would return the next day. They were first taken to a military security branch in [redacted location], and later to Branch 261 in Homs. Initially, they were treated relatively lightly and there was no immediate mistreatment.
But, as Plaintiff’s Counsel Bahns stressed, the transfer to Branch 261 marked the beginning of dehumanization. He referred to the many harrowing testimonies during the trial and the degrading conditions in intelligence services prisons. The infamous pictures from Sednaya prison served as a suitable visual for the broader public. When asked how he had spent his first night, P8 said he was afraid: overcrowded cells, unbearable hygienic conditions, no clean water, inadequate food, insufficient ventilation and lighting. The consequences were malnutrition, illness, and physical deterioration, compounded by torture, constant fear of death, and complete uncertainty. There was barely space; some prisoners sat, while others stood. In this situation, his brother suffered an epileptic seizure and was beaten so severely he briefly lost consciousness. P8 tried to protect him by offering comfort: he sat beside him, smiled, and reassured him they would be released soon, even though he was in despair himself.
P8 knew that his brother urgently needed medical treatment and heard that doctors were expected the next day. When they arrived, he encountered [redacted name] and Alaa M. When P8 told the Accused they were from Baba Amr, he was slapped. The security forces brought them back to the cell. P8 was shocked: he had expected a doctor who would help his visibly ill brother. But his brother's condition deteriorated, and after further seizures, P8, desperate, approached the doctors again. Alaa M. requested that the epileptic be brought again, though according to Plaintiffs’ Counsel Bahns, this was more of a command despite the brother’s clear medical emergency. The Accused insulted, slapped, and kicked the brother. P8 stood in front of him [his brother] to protect him. Both were beaten with a hose and insulted in such a way that the interpreter at the time, Mr. Dia Farrag, the late brother of current interpreter Mr. Ahmad Farrag, was visibly reluctant translating the offenses.
About 30 minutes later, Alaa M. returned and asked for the epileptic again. P8 needed help from fellow prisoners to bring his brother. A tablet was handed to him [P8], he hesitated, unsure of its contents, so the Accused administered it himself [to the brother]. P8 brought his brother back to the cell, where his condition rapidly worsened.
After 15 minutes, the brother was motionless. P8 recounted:
“I said, ‘If you can hear me, squeeze my hand.’ He did. Later, he didn’t. I thought he was asleep. The next morning, I wanted to talk to him, but there was nothing. My fellow inmates saw me talking to him. I said I didn’t know what was wrong. Then two orderlies came, felt his pulse, and said, ‘Your brother is dead.’ I said, ‘No, he’s just cold.’ I put my socks on him. I didn’t know what to tell my mother. What do I say to his children? To this day, they ask me.” The body was removed. One day later, P8 and P11 were interrogated and tortured with beatings and electric shocks. P8 continues to suffer from the physical and psychological consequences to this day, which became unmistakably evident during his testimony. Plaintiff’s Counsel Bahns stated that he had learned from witness P19 what had happened to the body afterward but chose not to share it, as it no longer related directly to the charges.
Plaintiff's Counsel Bahns again turned to the Accused, who denied ever having been part of an intelligence unit but failed to provide any significant evidence to support this claim. The testimonies of witnesses P8, P11, and P19, supplemented by a prisoner list from CIJA and a handover document dated December 7, 2011, supported the allegations. P8 was questioned by the Court for over four weeks across six main hearing days. The extensive questioning and repeated recollections retraumatized him. Deviations in his testimony were normal given the circumstances and the fear of death under which he had suffered. He appeared completely exhausted during and after his questioning.
The Plaintiff’s Counsel further emphasized that P8 gave a sincere and credible impression. He appeared responsible and openly admitted his weaknesses, e.g. when it came to numbers. The fact that he had written down names and places was not contradictory but rather showed his commitment to remembering everything accurately. There were no signs of a tendency to incriminate; instead, it was evident that P8 felt obligated to contribute to the investigation. P8 consistently appeared sincere, honest, and responsible. He freely admitted his difficulties with numbers and described himself as a simple man. The Plaintiff's Counsel reiterated that P8 could not even recall the birthdays of his children and had written down names and locations simply to avoid forgetting them.
P8 acknowledged uncertainties and discrepancies, particularly regarding the chronology, but these appeared plausible. His testimony regarding the core events, especially the identification and recognition of Alaa M., was clear. The method he used to memorize names was also convincing: he had written them down, along with places of origin, and kept the list in his wallet to avoid forgetting, unlike what had happened to his brother [redacted name], whose fate he could never forget. In conclusion, Plaintiff's Counsel Bahns summarized that there was no evidence of false incrimination, nor was there any discernible motive for such. The reference to [redacted name] was especially relevant in the context of Homs Military Hospital, as [redacted name] had repeatedly been associated with abuse and cruelty by various witnesses. It was proven that Alaa M. was responsible for the death of P8's brother. While doctors are meant to heal, in Syria, the medical system was intertwined with the intelligence services. Medical staff supported the regime and thereby became part of a system of torture and imprisonment. The Plaintiff's Counsel emphasized that the brother’s pre-existing condition was known to the doctors. The abuse began with the admission of the brothers and P11 to Branch 261. Although stress may have triggered epileptic seizures, it was Alaa M.'s actions, administering the wrong medication and withholding appropriate treatment that ultimately led to the brother's death. Plaintiff's Counsel Bahns concluded by quoting the Accused, who had proudly told the Court about treating an epileptic fellow inmate. When asked, he explained that basic medical training included the necessary knowledge for such treatment. This supported the conclusion that he already had the relevant knowledge at the time. Counsel Bahns noted that, at the beginning of the trial, he had asked the Accused why he had become a doctor. Defense Counsel Endres declined to answer. Throughout the trial, however, an image of the Accused emerged that did not match the impression P8 had when he first confided in him.
Due to the accuracy of the Prosecution’s statement, Plaintiff's Counsel Bahns announced that his legal assessment would be brief. Alaa M. was responsible for the torture of P8 and the killing of his brother. These acts formed part of a broader pattern of systematic violence against the Syrian civilian population, especially in Homs. The arrest, deportation to the intelligence service, mistreatment during admission, and subsequent abuse by the Accused represented a typical pattern as required by Section 7 of the GCCAIL. The alleged reasons for the arrest were merely a pretext for abduction, detention, and abuse. The evidence clearly showed that military hospitals constituted a central pillar of the attack on civilians. The closing statement focused on the legal consequences. P8 himself had no interest in punishment, he sought no compensation and knew it would not bring back his late brother. For him, it was crucial that Alaa M.’s responsibility was established and the crimes acknowledged. Plaintiff’s Counsel Bahns said in a personal remark that a life sentence was not consistent with human rights, human dignity, and the German Basic Law and that for this reason, the Plaintiff’s Counsel did not request a specific sentence. Plaintiff’s Counsel Bahns concluded by honoring Syrian civil society and its role in reckoning with the crimes of the regime and its accomplices. He praised human rights organizations, activists, and NGOs, and acknowledged the courage and determination of his client. He expressed hope that the trial would contribute to better conditions and greater freedom for Syria.
The Plaintiff's Counsel then read the closing statement of his client, who was unable to attend. P8 expressed his gratitude to the German judiciary “a fortress of truth and justice” and to the [redacted location] government for fulfilling its humanitarian duty. He vowed never to forget what had happened and to seek truth, with God as his witness. Now a European citizen, he identified as a witness to a heinous crime. He trusted the Court to deliver a just verdict, regardless of its outcome. He spoke on behalf of the Syrian civilian population who had suffered under tyranny. The new Syrian regime offered a glimmer of hope. In conclusion, he thanked all those involved in confronting the regime’s crimes and ended with the words: “May God be with everyone.”
***
[12-minute break]
***
Plaintiff's Counsel Bessler then continued with his closing statement. With regard to his client [redacted name], P4, he emphasized that just as for the Prosecution in its closing argument, not only the legal assessment, but also the factual basis had to be clarified with great effort. This was, he said, to the Court’s great credit. The Accused’s testimony was not objectionable in itself, as he was under no obligation to tell the truth. However, his defense behavior was not conducive to establishing the truth. Although Alaa M. made defensive allegations, he denied key charges concerning the accessory prosecution. Among other things, he presented a document intended to prove his absence from the crime scene. Plaintiff’s Counsel Bessler, however, referred to witnesses and to expert witness Dr. Steinberg, P24, who had testified that deeds and documents of all kinds could be obtained in Syria for a fee. In contrast, witness P4 gave a powerful and detailed account of his hospital admission. Doubts regarding his credibility were unfounded: P4 testified in detail, emotionally, and without memory gaps. He repeatedly put himself at risk. Due to the dangerous situation, the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) ultimately arranged protective measures for him. The Accused had stepped on a festering wound on P4’s elbow with his shoe, set fire to the area, knocked out three of his teeth, and beaten him with a baton until he was unconscious. As a doctor, Alaa M. was obliged to protect people. Instead, he claimed that P4 had obtained his information from media reports, without providing any evidence for this. This claim was not confirmed during the trial. Plaintiff’s Counsel Bessler did not file a criminal complaint but left sentencing to the discretion of the court.
Plaintiff's Counsel Reiger then gave his closing statement. He emphasized that the Prosecution’s argument had been so comprehensive that he agreed with its content and had little to add. The crimes had been committed a long time ago; language barriers and the vulnerability of witnesses and their families in Syria had made the proceedings more difficult. The principle of universal jurisdiction sends a message to both perpetrators and victims. For his client, [redacted name], P1, it had long been unthinkable that perpetrators would be held criminally responsible. The trial transformed his role from torture victim to recognized injured party. The Court had brought to light what should have remained silenced and had clearly exposed and explained the crimes in Tishreen and Homs. On trial day 15, Plaintiff’s Counsel Reiger asked P1 what the worst part of his detention had been. His answer: the insults, because in Syrian-Islamic culture, this is a particularly profound form of humiliation. The trial restored the dignity of P1 and of the victims of torture. The Accused is no longer above them; he must be held accountable. This is of central importance to the people of Syria. Restoring justice is the task of the court in accordance with the GCCAIL not because of political events, but precisely because of the systematic attacks on the civilian population.
In 2011, P1 was eighteen years old. He wanted to study engineering after graduating from high school and participated in demonstrations in [redacted location]. His participation, his origin, and his family name alone led to his arrest at a military checkpoint in April 2012. What followed were months of detention, mistreatment, and severe torture until December 2012. When P1 was released from Homs Central Prison at the age of 19, he was a physically and mentally scarred young man. The consequences remain with him to this day. Plaintiff’s Counsel Reiger further explained that P1’s testimony at trial was limited to those acts of torture relevant to the case against the Accused. In August 2012, P1 was accused of participating in a riot at the Homs Central Prison. Together with 15 to 20 other detainees, he was transferred to the military security unit, where he remained for 15 days. The torture was so extreme that he and others requested to be transferred to a hospital. Fellow prisoners warned him: these were no longer hospitals, but slaughterhouses. P1 understood that the entire system of security services, judiciary, and medicine served the regime. On trial day 13, P1 testified that once you are seen as an opponent of the regime, your blood is "released." He thought his injuries could not possibly get any worse, but he was wrong. Before being admitted to the Military Hospital in Homs, doctors and nurses had been "angels of mercy" to him, representing care, healing, and humanity. He had seen doctors as professionals committed to people’s well-being, curing illness, and alleviating suffering. But that image changed abruptly upon admission.
Alaa M. and his co-perpetrators made life for P1 and other inmates at the Homs Military Hospital a living hell. The Prosecution had accurately described the torture for which the Accused was charged. Alaa M. had beaten P1 together with others and suspended him from the ceiling using the “Shabeh” torture method, in which prisoners are hoisted with their hands tied so that only the tips of their toes touch the ground. This position causes unbearable pain; according to Plaintiff’s Counsel Reiger, everyone in Syria is familiar with it. It becomes even more brutal when hands and feet are tied and the victim is suspended completely in the air while being beaten. The body is stretched to its physical limit, and the spine is at risk of breaking. This is exactly what happened to P1 in the torture room, at the hands of the Accused and his accomplices. After he had collapsed to the floor, unconscious and freed from the restraints, he was sprayed with a liquid and burned on the arm. The detention conditions described above alone fulfilled the criteria of torture under Section 7 (1) (5) GCCAIL: lack of food, mold on the walls, feces on the floor, scabies, vermin infestation, and gastrointestinal diseases, all designed to inflict maximum suffering. Death was at least accepted as a possible outcome.
P1 continues to suffer from the consequences of the torture inflicted by the Accused. The suspension by his hands and feet caused permanent damage to his spine, and he still suffers from chronic back pain. The burn left a visible scar, documented by Prof. Dr. Rothschild. P1 also continues to suffer psychologically from flashbacks and sleep disorders that will likely haunt him for the rest of his life. Plaintiff’s Counsel Reiger further emphasized that Alaa M. had a choice. The Accused consciously chose to be part of a criminal system; he tortured and killed out of conviction. Other doctors, within the limits of their possibilities, at least tried to show compassion and refrained from torture, unlike Alaa M. This underlined his loyalty to the regime, as also emphasized by the Prosecution in its closing statement. This loyalty made him deployable not only in military hospitals but also within intelligence services. It was therefore not surprising that he was reassigned to the Homs Military Hospital in August and September 2012. Also worth noting is a Facebook chat with [redacted name] from January 9, 2012. In it, the Accused wrote that he had completed “al-Aghrar” [course] in Homs, i.e. basic military training. This too indicates that Alaa M. sought to actively participate in the suppression of protests, well beyond the role of a civilian resident.
Regarding the assessment of P1’s testimony: he was examined as a witness on five main hearing days, two of which consisted solely of confrontational questioning by the Defense. In its closing statement, the Prosecution noted that some witnesses were pushed to their limits, which applied especially to P1. The Court’s questions were numerous, detailed, and sometimes intense. The memory of what he had experienced led him to break down multiple times, both in the courtroom and in the witness room. Plaintiff’s Counsel Reiger also stressed that the Prosecution assessed P1’s testimony as credible and consistent.
P1 himself described his motivation for testifying as follows:
Trial day 13: “The main reason I came here is to follow this trial. It is a duty. You know, today is the second day of Eid. I have left my family alone because I am here to fulfill a duty. It’s something that everyone who has suffered in this hospital has to fulfill.”
Trial day 16: “I also said beforehand that I see this as a duty. Nevertheless, I suffer all this pressure, I have depressive problems, injuries, because I want to fulfill this duty. That the truth should come out, and people should know what happened.”
Plaintiff’s Counsel Reiger referred to the Prosecution’s detailed and accurate assessment of the origin, consistency, and quality of the testimony and, to avoid repetition, refrained from further comment. There were no indications that P1 had not told the truth in his testimony before the court. The Plaintiff’s Counsel then emphasized P1’s identification of the Accused. His credibility was also evident in the careful way he approached the identification. He did not simply follow an image of “Alaa M.” circulating online, as the Defense repeatedly claimed, nor did he, for instance, falsely name the doctor [redacted name] as his tormentor. During the first presentation of selected photographs in Greece, P1 cautiously identified the Accused’s photo as the doctor who had tortured him in the Military Hospital with 70% certainty. In the main hearing, P1’s remaining doubts were removed by the Accused himself: Alaa M. repeatedly interrupted P1’s testimony with loud interjections and corrected translations. P1 testified that when he heard the voice of the person who had spoken earlier, he mentally left the courtroom. He immediately recalled the torture he and other prisoners had endured. On trial day 14, he recalled that a person who insults you with certain words is unforgettable. The insults about one's sister and mother, in Arab culture, are extremely serious. There is no appropriate way to respond. These remarks triggered deep emotional reactions in P1.
Reiger recalled to mind that when P1 was asked by the Presiding Judge whether he still stood by the 70–80% identification, P1 rejected this and said: “It is 100%.”
Plaintiff’s Counsel Reiger highlighted that P1 had identified the Accused not only by his appearance, but also by his voice. P1’s account of the killing of his fellow prisoner [redacted name] was equally credible. He had described how military policemen took [redacted name] from his cell, wrote something on his body, and carried him away in a sack. From the Caesar photos, it is known that the Syrian military police were responsible for registering and documenting deceased prisoners. The labeling of corpses visible in those photographs is consistent with P1’s description, suggesting that the same happened to [redacted name]. P1 had been able to reliably identify the uniforms of the military police due to family ties to the military and his resulting familiarity with it. From Reiger’s perspective, this further supported the conclusion that [redacted name] had died in the cell.
Plaintiff’s Counsel Reiger also emphasized that P1 explicitly wanted to thank the Court for giving him the opportunity to describe his experiences and for listening to him. This chance to speak and the Court’s thorough investigation meant a great deal to him as an injured party. P1 also expressed gratitude toward the Prosecution, the investigators, and especially the witness protection officers of the Federal Criminal Police Office. The Plaintiff’s Counsel further named BKA lead investigator Deußing specifically, acknowledging him on behalf of all police officers involved, whose work had played a central role in investigating crimes against humanity in Syria, an investigation that might never have taken place in this form otherwise. P1 wished to express his personal appreciation for this. Plaintiff’s Counsel Reiger agreed with the Prosecution’s closing argument regarding sentencing. The Accused had committed a crime against humanity by torture pursuant to Section 7 (1) (5) GCCAIL, and a war crime against persons by torture pursuant to Section 8 (1) (3) GCCAIL, to the detriment of P1. A single prison sentence of eleven years seemed appropriate in relation to P1. Reiger left the determination of the total sentence to the discretion of the Court. In addition, the Accused should bear P1’s necessary expenses.
***
[1-hour break]
***
Defense Counsel Al-Agi began his closing argument with a personal statement. He emphasized that even the Defense considered the Prosecution's assessment of the Syrian regime’s crimes to be well-founded. As a native of Homs, he himself had suffered under the regime, especially during his student days. The witnesses' testimonies had been difficult for him to hear, as they reminded him of places he had personally experienced, places he never wished to revisit.
He then turned to the specific facts of the case. For three and a half years, incidents had been discussed that allegedly occurred thousands of kilometers away, or possibly not at all. For his closing statement, he focused on cases 12, 16, 17, and 18.
Defense Counsel Al-Agi questioned how these incriminating testimonies were possible if Alaa M. had no longer been active in Homs as of November 20, 2011. Regarding case 12, he explained that the Accused denied working in the Homs Military Hospital or any intelligence facility after that date. However, according to the evidence, witnesses P8, P11, and deceased [redacted name], P8’s brother, were arrested on November 23, 2011 and taken to a military intelligence branch in Homs, where they claimed to have seen the Accused.
In this context, the Defense Counsel referred to a Der SPIEGEL article dated May 22, 2020, which publicly accused Alaa M. for the first time of torturing prisoners in Homs in October 2011. An unnamed source had claimed that Alaa M. killed his brother on November 23, 2011. After becoming aware of this, the Accused began collecting personal documents to prove he had no longer been working in Homs. These were introduced in court and confirmed his departure from the Homs Military Hospital on November 20, 2011, with a transfer to Damascus. Following his arrest on June 19, 2020, the Defense received access to the files on July 2, 2020, including the questioning record of witness P8. That record stated, consistent with the SPIEGEL article, that P8 had been arrested on October 23, 2011, evidence, in the Defense’s view, that Alaa M. was still in Homs at that time.
Despite doubts raised about the authenticity of the documents submitted by the Accused, their content suggested transparency regarding his work locations, indicating no intent to deceive. Defense Counsel Al-Agi then questioned the credibility of witnesses P8 and P11, particularly concerning their alleged recognition of the Accused. He planned to address the following five aspects in detail:
- the witnesses’ memory
- the origin of the note allegedly produced
- P8’s UNHCR interview in [redacted location] (April 2015)
- the description of the Accused’s appearance
- further inconsistencies in the statements
Addressing the first point, Defense Counsel Al-Agi argued that it became clear during questioning that P8 and P11 had poor recollection regarding the Accused’s identification. At the start of his first questioning, P8 had told the Court he did not know the doctor’s name. Yet shortly after, he claimed to have heard and memorized the names “Alaa M.” and “[redacted name]” while in prison in 2011. When asked whether he knew a brother or cousin of [redacted name], P8 said he had heard the name in prison and had written it down after his release. When asked about the name [redacted name], he initially claimed not to remember. However, when reminded that he had previously told the police he had heard this name in an al-Jazeera report, he again evaded the question by citing memory loss. These contradictions raised questions about how P8 could remember a name allegedly heard nine years ago, yet not recall a recent police interview. He also could not say when his interview with the newspaper [redacted information] took place, claiming that he generally forgets times, even his own children's birthdays.
Al-Agi also argued that P8 testified that he had not been fingerprinted during detention, yet police records indicate he had previously reported being forced to give fingerprints. He explained this discrepancy by saying he confuses numbers and needs to coordinate dates with P11, his cousin, because of memory gaps. P11 himself confirmed that P8 had forgotten certain things such as the name of a fellow inmate whose leg had been amputated. All of this, according to the Defense, argued against a reliable memory.
Defense Counsel Al-Agi then referred to Annex 2 of P8’s police questioning, in which P8 stated that he had a note made after his release containing the names and geographic origin of the two doctors. However, the Defense pointed to contradictions between P8’s and P11’s accounts regarding this note’s creation. P8 claimed his wife wrote the note because he had poor handwriting. P11, on the other hand, stated a nurse had written it. The Defense also found it notable that although P8 described the note as an important memento and told P11 about it during a 2016 meeting in [redacted location], he apparently said nothing about its content or origin. P11 could not say whether he had ever even seen the note. These factors, according to al-Agi, cast doubt on the existence or at least the authenticity of the note. The Defense concluded the story surrounding it was constructed in hindsight to justify P8’s alleged memory of the Accused’s name. It was particularly implausible, in the Defense's view, that two witnesses could retain a name for nine years under such traumatic prison conditions without any written evidence. The Defense also questioned P8’s credibility in light of his 2015 UNHCR interview in [redacted location]. Although P8 gave detailed descriptions of his detention, abuse, and the death of his epileptic brother, he never mentioned any names, despite allegedly having memorized them and even carrying a written note. Asked why, P8 told the court he had feared UNHCR staff who were possibly influenced by Hezbollah. The Defense found this unconvincing: if he was willing to talk about torture, death, and regime crimes, why should Alaa M.’s name have been too dangerous to mention?
According to Defense Counsel al-Agi, the UNHCR report appeared thorough, neutral, and professional. The claim that P8 feared its staff was therefore implausible. P8 had also stated in court that he told UNHCR the same story he told the Court, yet the documents did not support that claim. Further contradictions emerged in P8’s description of the Accused. Initially, he said Alaa M. wore civilian clothes; later he added military trousers. [Redacted name] allegedly wore a military jacket and civilian trousers. P8 said he did not speak directly to the doctors, only observing as others were beaten. He also claimed a prison guard addressed Alaa M. with “Yes, sir” a term normally used for military officers, though the Accused had never served in the military. These inconsistencies, along with unclear descriptions of the detention site and overall uncertainty, undermined the reliability of the identification. The Defense noted that poor lighting and the absence of windows would have made recognition difficult. On the third day of questioning, one witness recalled that the two doctors had given out blood pressure pills and left again. However, P8 never clearly stated whether these individuals were in fact doctors, rather than prison guards.
Defense Counsel al-Agi then emphasized that P8 often gave evasive answers and could not say who had left for half an hour and then returned. He also could not describe the condition of his late brother [redacted name]. According to P8, there had been a mix-up between diabetes and blood pressure pills, but no one had died. This contradicted other accounts and weakened the narrative of severe consequences. P8 also claimed to have overheard a conversation about “Alaa M.,” yet later clarified no names were mentioned at all. When asked about the pills, P11 stated only that he had been told a pill had not been given, not that he witnessed it. He reported a single instance of mistreatment, though previously claimed there had been three within two days. This, too, suggested inconsistencies. Defense Counsel al-Agi further argued that P11 had recognized Alaa M. through media images in France and pretended to be impartial while coordinating with P8. Witness Anwar al-Bunni, P23, confirmed this, saying that P11 had contacted him on Facebook.
Witness [redacted name], P19, too, described a detention setting but failed to plausibly link it to the Accused. He said he had heard the name “Dr. Alaa” in relation to beatings, but could not explain when he connected the name to a specific person. One incident he described involved a knock at the door and a dark figure entering, allegedly Alaa M., but the identification was vague and unconvincing. On the fourth day of questioning, P19 described another incident in Central Prison involving a man named [redacted name]. There was a court record of this. However, the Defense found no credible explanation for how [redacted name] was linked to Alaa M. P19, the Defense said, appeared heavily influenced by social media and prior media coverage. Finally, Defense Counsel al-Agi acknowledged that P8’s epileptic brother was indeed a victim of the regime. This case had been widely reported, and P19 had spoken with P23 before his interrogation. P19 also recalled seeing reports and images online about an epileptic victim, suggesting his testimony may have been shaped by external sources rather than firsthand memory.
According to Defense Counsel al-Agi, the testimony of witness P4 had been refuted. On the first day of questioning, P4 began with a prepared speech in High Arabic delivered in an aggressive tone, rather than answering questions directly in the courtroom. It was a rehearsed testimony. When the Court asked for further details, P4 began shouting that they were not in al-Assad’s country and that he sought justice, while banging on the table. His intention, according to the Defense, was to convince the bench of his credibility. His behavior, however, indicated insecurity. When asked for specifics, P4 limited himself to general claims. Independent of these issues, Defense Counsel al-Agi argued that the testimonies of P1 and P4 were contradictory, illogical, and inconsistent.
He then provided several examples: P4 had claimed to have been admitted to the hospital at his own request, while at the same time testifying that he had been warned of the danger. P1 had said he was transferred to the Homs Military Hospital as retaliation for the prison riot. When asked whether [redacted name] had remained in the cell after the injection, P4 once replied that it had been for several hours, but earlier during a police interview, he stated it had been several days. He later explained this as a translation error during the police questioning. He also claimed to have seen the doctor after the injection but elsewhere said he had only seen the doctor a few times. Regarding the description of the deceased [redacted name], P4 testified that the eyes protrude when a person dies, but then added other descriptions unrelated to outward appearance. Furthermore, he claimed to have observed limbs being set on fire twice. once in the cell, when alcohol was poured on someone's arm and set alight, and again at the entrance. These were, according to Defense Counsel al-Agi, contradictory accounts made within a short time, casting doubt on his credibility.
In another inconsistency, P4 claimed he could not remember whether others had been beaten. During the hearing, Judge Rhode referred to P4’s police questioning, in which he had clearly stated that beatings took place. P4 then again claimed a translation error, but the Judge questioned this, since the content of the statement had clearly indicated such events. Defense Counsel Al-Agi also pointed out that P4 had likely seen images online and reinterpreted them in the context of his own prison experience. He emphasized that the central prison in Homs was a facility for regular prisoners, not political detainees. Thus, P4’s imprisonment was not for political reasons, but for criminal offenses. His underage nephew [redacted name], P47, had been detained in a different part of the prison. As for the claim that P47 later ended up with him in the Military Hospital, Al-Agi questioned whether P4 had fabricated this. P47 himself had not confirmed it, he had merely said he was in various hospitals but could not recall specific incidents. In the Defense’s view, P4’s account did not prove that he had been imprisoned or tortured. Defense Counsel Al-Agi also pointed to a list of names P4 allegedly provided , another contradiction, since prisoners were identified by numbers, not names.
In the hearing on July 21, 2022, P4 testified that he had only contacted P1 after P1 saw Alaa M. on social media. Further contradictions concerned the hospital premises. Other witnesses, including doctors, had testified that there were no torture rooms in the basement, but instead operating rooms, a cafeteria, and a hair salon. P4 also gave inconsistent accounts of when the abuse occurred: once saying it was upon arrival, another time two days later.
The Defense further claimed that P1’s testimony also contained contradictions and was influenced. In their view, P1’s statements lacked coherence and could not serve as a reliable basis for conviction when viewed alongside P4’s.
As for the verdict against P4 from Syria, the Defense considered it valid, since it detailed aspects of his life. They interpreted his “cynical laugh” in response to the accusations as a sign of being caught off guard. The reaction appeared authentic, not rehearsed, also because of the apparent translation errors. Additionally, Alaa M.’s father had filed a defamation complaint against P4. Concerns about the origin of the Syrian court judgment were speculative and unproven. The document came from Brigadier General Khaled Ahmad Kakhi خالد أحمد كاخي, then head of the central prison in Homs. Expert witness P24 confirmed both his position and the authenticity of the document.
The Defense also accused P4 of lying about the torture of his nephew P47. The Prosecution’s statement had triggered an aggressive and loud reaction from P4. He had also allegedly threatened his sister and nephew in Syria, suggesting he may have defrauded people for money. His general aggressive, deceptive, and loud behavior reinforced the Defense’s doubts about his credibility. After a break, the Court called for a meeting with interpreter Farrag, who had been observing from the public gallery.
[20-minute break]
After the break, Defense Counsel Endres delivered his closing argument. He explained that he wished to briefly assess the overall proceedings from the Defense’s perspective. Defense Counsel Bonn would focus in detail on Counts 12 and 16–18 in his own statement. Defense Counsel Endres emphasized his respect for all trial participants. It had been an unusual trial: it lasted over 3.5 years, covered a large number of locations, and required parties to rely on Google Maps due to the impossibility of site visits. The political situation and the lack of diplomatic relations made the proceedings considerably more difficult. He underlined that the trial had relied on witnesses who had come to Germany either voluntarily or in search of asylum. Still, it had not been possible to hear a single witness who could have contributed to the exoneration of the Accused, such as hospital directors, the then Syrian Minister of Health, or high-ranking generals.
He noted that what the Prosecution had described about Syria sent a chill down one’s spine. He added that the same stories would repeat themselves as long as people do not change. His initial reservations toward the Prosecution and the Joint Plaintiffs had been resolved; Federal Public Prosecutor Zabeck was, in his words, very kind and pleasant. He quoted Austrian satirist Helmut Qualtinger: “I know one thing for sure – man is a pig” [German: Da Mensch is a Sau, meaning that humans are bad].
According to the "opposition," Alaa M. had been part of the repressive apparatus. Defense Counsel Endres said he had thought about this the night before. The Accused came to Germany in 2015, completed his specialist training in orthopedics and trauma surgery, and had a child with his wife at the time. In April 2020, a documentary aired on al-Jazeera in which Alaa M. was shown with his full name and image, the producer had 2.6 million followers. A SPIEGEL article also reported on him.
To stress his point, the Defense Counsel referred to the saying: “In Nuremberg, they don’t hang anyone unless they’ve got him.” Until that point, no one had mentioned Alaa M.’s name. Only then did P23, a “dazzling personality,” as Endres put it, and others come forward. The storm around Alaa M. began, and people started focusing on him, forming a network to exchange information. Alaa M. did not recognize the danger, went on the offensive, and filed a criminal complaint for defamation. According to Defense Counsel Endres, he became a stand-in for a representative of the Assad regime when no one else was available. Yet before the spring of 2011 and after his arrival in Germany, he had simply fulfilled his professional duty by treating people, not torturing or killing them. He had repeatedly stated that he did not know the witnesses and had not been present at the alleged crime scenes.
Defense Counsel Endres said it was strange that a man who came to Germany to heal would then go on the offensive. He noted that the man sitting behind the Defense kept repeating the same phrase during witness testimony: that he did not know these people. The chat logs of the Accused showed that he was a passionate supporter of the regime, a topic better left unspoken, since he was a Christian. Christians and Alawites were protected minorities under the regime. Nonetheless, the Defense Counsel questioned whether Alaa M. had acted in the way the Prosecution claimed. He described his client as a victim, as someone who had made himself a victim. He had been in custody for five years and had probably saved someone’s life. Defense Counsel Endres dismissed the psychological report by Prof. Berger as adventurous and not worth the paper it’s written on. Alaa M. had voluntarily given up his medical license. Throughout the trial, he had behaved in a calm and restrained manner, only speaking up once during Plaintiff Counsel Bahns’ statement about the Military Security Branch where P8 had been detained, to say he hadn’t even been there.
After the closing statement by Defense Counsel Endres, Defense Counsel Bonn was the third and final member of the Defense team to deliver his closing argument. At the beginning, he made it clear that the Prosecution had, in its closing statement, accurately summarized the results of the comprehensive and intensive taking of evidence regarding the reign of terror under the al-Assad regime, conducted over three and a half years. In particular, the protests in Syria beginning in early 2011 and their brutal suppression by state authorities were convincingly acknowledged. Defense Counsel Bonn explicitly stated that the Defense agreed with this finding.
He then turned to two central issues from the evidentiary proceedings:
- the relocation of the Accused from Homs to Damascus,
- the duration of the Accused's stay at the al-Mazzeh Military Hospital in Damascus.
These points correspond to Counts 12 and 16 to 18 of the indictment.
According to the arrest warrant issued by the Federal Court on June 19, 2020, which was presented to Alaa M. as case 12 on June 20, 2020, the alleged victims, P8 and his brother, were arrested on November 23, 2011, and taken to Homs prison. The arrest warrant states that P8’s brother [redacted name] was beaten between the time of his arrest and November 23, 2011, until he lost consciousness, suffered an epileptic seizure, and died shortly thereafter. Alaa M. is said to have played an active role in this, including administering a tablet.
The Defense countered that the Accused had been transferred from the Homs Military Hospital to the al-Mazzeh Military Hospital at his own request, effective November 20, 2011, with November 19, 2011, being his last working day in Homs. This is evidenced by a certificate of experience issued by the Syrian Ministry of Defense dated July 19, 2020. The authenticity of this certificate is further supported by the matching signature found on other documents introduced during the trial. Defense Counsel Bonn emphasized that this certificate is not exculpatory but incriminating, as it proves the Accused’s presence in Homs at a time relevant to the charges. A deliberate forgery in his favor is therefore unlikely. This is supported by an administrative order from the Syrian [Administration of] Military Medical Services dated November 20, 2011, with a receipt stamp from al-Mazzeh Hospital dated November 23, 2011.
The Defense added that Alaa M.'s move to Damascus was also supported by chat histories from his Facebook profile, which had been analyzed by the Federal Criminal Police Office and introduced into evidence. These consistently showed that the Accused was in Damascus from late November 2011 onward. In particular, chats with [redacted name] and [redacted name] indicate that he continued his medical work at Al-Mazzeh Military Hospital during this time. Furthermore, a message exchanged on November 17, 2011, between witnesses [redacted name], P35 and [redacted name], P48, mentioned that “Shakhees شخيص,” the Accused’s nickname, would be moving to Damascus the following week. Defense Counsel Bonn explained that the Defense refuted the Prosecution’s objection that the nickname “Shakhees” could not be definitively linked to the Accused by pointing to other self-designations by Alaa M., such as “Abo Shaker أبو شاكر.”
On the second issue, Bonn emphasized that, apart from witnesses P1 and P4, not a single witness had testified or even implied that the Accused had returned to the Homs Military Hospital after his transfer to Damascus. No other findings or indications of that effect emerged during the proceedings. The same applies to the extensive Facebook chats introduced into evidence, which contain no indication of such a stay. It is particularly noteworthy that the relocation from Homs to Damascus was a frequent topic in these chats over several weeks. Had Alaa M. been transferred temporarily back to Homs in summer 2012, this would most likely have been reflected in those conversations. The idea that he deliberately concealed such an assignment, e.g., out of political conviction, seems far-fetched. Bonn also noted that no medical witness had reported any such return.
On the contrary, witnesses [redacted name], P26, [redacted name], P28, and [redacted name], P36, testified that they were aware of Alaa M.'s transfer to Damascus. P26 reported meeting the Accused once or twice per week thereafter. P28 stated he worked with the Accused at the Al-Mazzeh Military Hospital for approximately six months, until mid-2012. When he left the hospital, Alaa M. continued working there until the end of 2012.
Witness [redacted name], P30, also confirmed that the Accused was in Damascus from late 2011 or early 2012 onward. Similar testimonies came from witnesses [redacted name], P57, [redacted name], P34, and [redacted name], P42, who had personal contact with the Accused in Damascus through the end of 2012. Numerous Facebook messages documented his medical activity on specific days. For example, he wrote about assisting in an operation at the private French Hospital in July 2012, confirmed by witnesses [redacted name], P37, and [redacted name], P29. Defense Counsel Bonn further pointed out that the Accused had witnessed the bomb explosion in Damascus on July 18, 2012, confirmed by witness [redacted name], P33. Another confirmed event was a gunshot wound to the leg that he suffered in Damascus on December 5, 2012. Several medical witnesses corroborated this. Witness [redacted name], P40, who worked at the Al-Mazzeh Military Hospital from spring 2012 to the end of 2013, reported working with the Accused and confirmed the injury. None of the witnesses indicated that Alaa M. had left Damascus or the hospital during that period. On the contrary, he was seen there regularly and assisted in operations with other doctors.
The fact that Alaa M. visited his home village during his free time or on vacation, as he himself testified, does not constitute evidence of a stay at the Homs military hospital in summer 2012, as claimed by the Prosecution. Such visits are not incriminating. According to the Defense, there is no evidence that Alaa M. worked outside al-Mazzeh in 2012. While witness P57's testimony about abuse initially appeared credible, his demeanor was clearly driven by revenge and focused on the Accused. Even the Prosecution ultimately did not rely on this witness, especially since he falsely claimed that doctors could transfer between military hospitals at will, when in fact only the Syrian medical administration determined deployments.
Regarding preventive detention, Bonn noted that the Prosecution supported the expert opinion of Prof. Dr. Berger and applied for detention pursuant to Sect. 66 of the German Criminal Code (GCC). However, Prof. Berger testified during questioning on February 11, 2025, that a “propensity” within the meaning of Sect. 66 typically applies to habitual offenders, which did not match Alaa M.’s profile. A diagnosis of such a tendency should therefore be made only with caution. While Prof. Berger saw indications of sadistic behavior and potential for addictive tendencies in connection with narcissistic-perfectionist and impulsive traits, there were no further indicators of addiction, especially as the Accused denied the charges. The expert found it conceivable that any potential behavior was shaped by coercive political conditions in Syria. If Alaa M. had committed acts of hatred, he would still be accountable for doing so in his capacity as a doctor. The Accused had been socialized and trained under the al-Assad regime, with no alternative, and under its one-sided propaganda.
With the onset of the uprising against the al-Assad regime, he had apparently radicalized into a loyal and blind follower. This unique socio-political context, now deemed to be effectively over, was the trigger for the alleged behavior. Alaa M. now finds himself in a completely different situation. There is no evidence of any similar behavior either before 2011 or after his arrival in Germany. On the contrary: the evidence argues against future dangerousness. According to Defense Counsel Bonn, case law stipulates that a presumption of dangerousness does not apply if significant changes in circumstance have occurred. An automatic order of preventive detention is therefore ruled out. At the conclusion of the trial, the Accused also credibly testified that he would no longer practice medicine, even if legally permitted to do so. He returned both his Syrian and German licenses to practice medicine.
Bonn concluded by stating that it could not be said with certainty that the Accused posed a danger of committing similar acts in the future even if he had committed such acts in the past. He ended his closing argument by requesting that Alaa M. be acquitted of Counts 12 and 16 to 18.
The Defense’s closing arguments were followed by the last word of the Accused, which he read aloud in German. Alaa M. began with the greeting: “Dear ladies and gentlemen, dear Court.” He explained that even before his imprisonment, there had already been a wave of accusations and allegations against him. He had always responded by saying that he had full confidence in the German justice system. He had twice filed complaints with the German police regarding the allegations made about him. Defense Counsel Endres and Defense Counsel Bonn had told him that he did not need a defense because everything was fair in these proceedings. Over the course of the three years, the Prosecution had carried out detailed investigations, particularly in collecting witness testimonies. When he later accessed his Facebook account, he felt ashamed of some of his comments; however, he explained that he had been socialized in that system. At the time, he was naive and not “politically mature enough” to resist the media influence of the regime’s propaganda. Since the beginning of the proceedings, he had clearly described the Syrian regime as dictatorial. He had never defended it in court, even though it now sought to return to the international stage by rejoining the Arab League.
When the Accused requested location data from Meta about his Facebook logins to verify his whereabouts, he was hopeful, believing it could help prove his innocence. Unfortunately, Judge Rohde stated that the data was not useful. The Accused also said that he welcomed the fall of the Assad regime. He viewed the German media as a trustworthy source.
He had hoped that political change in Syria would allow for reopened connections so that the Federal Criminal Police Office could travel to the country and collect data for verification. However, this hope was dashed after Defense Counsel Bonn informed him that there was no legal cooperation with Syria.
Regarding the Joint Plaintiffs, Alaa M. said that he had no doubt they had been victims of the regime. However, until his last breath, he would maintain that he had never worked for the intelligence services or in the hospital in Homs at the time in question when P8, his late brother and P11 were detained.
He had decided that he no longer wished to work as a doctor in the future. He had written off the profession. He wanted to lead his life with his family and be there for his children. He expressed hope for a fair verdict. He hoped the truth would come to light because he believed in the German justice system. He concluded with the words “thank you.”
The Presiding Judge then summarized that the hearing dates of June 10 and 12 had been cancelled. For the verdict on June 16, 2025, at 10:30 AM, the courtroom doors would be opened an hour earlier due to the expected large turnout.
The proceedings were adjourned at 3:34 PM.
The next trial day will be June 16, 2025, at 10:30 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