Inside the Alaa M. Trial #76: Made up Out of Thin Air

Higher Regional Court – Frankfurt, Germany

Trial Monitoring Summary #76

Hearing Date: June 4 & 6, 2024

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 76th trial monitoring report details days 133 and 134 of the trial of Alaa M. in Frankfurt, Germany. On the first trial day this week, a new witness appeared in court. P41 is a doctor specialized in [redacted information] who worked with the Accused at Al-Mazzeh Military Hospital. At the Judges' request, P41 explained the differences between military and civilian hospitals, and how the unrest in Syria affected his personal and professional life. P41 was asked to describe how detained patients were brought to the hospital, how they were treated, and their condition and injuries.

P41 told the Judges that detainees were beaten and insulted and that he intervened to stop this whenever he wanted to examine them, which surprised the Judges who heard from other witnesses that this was something that no one dared to do. P41 recounted where the detainees were placed in the hospital and admitted hearing of death cases among them. He further said that intelligence personnel were the ones who brought the detainees to the hospital.

When asked by the Judges whether some of his colleagues switched their workplace from Military Hospitals, P41 confirmed that the colleagues who did that were Sunnis but added that he did not notice that they were in trouble or being cornered.

At the end of the hearing, the Judges' questions revolved around the Accused and what the witness knew about him. P41 recounted how he got to know M. and described him as overconfident, yet there were no issues between them. In contrast, P41 heard that other colleagues described M. as ostentatious and egotistical.

The second day was dedicated to completing the questioning of P41. The witness recalled an incident where M. decided not to consult a specialist during an emergency but decided himself instead. P41 confirmed the Judges’ conclusion that M. was overstepping his competence at that moment but P41 did not recall any further events exemplifying his judgment about M. Questioned about M.’s pro-regime stance, P41 denied having heard something in particular but concluded so from M.'s direct and indirect statements. The witness further recounted that M. had an injury but the precise time remained unclear.

P41 testified that after a wedding in 2015, he did not see M. again in Germany nor did they have any contact. He had learned about the allegations against M. in a Facebook group called “Syrian doctors in Germany” where the Der Spiegel investigation was posted. Asked whether he believed the accusations were true, he replied that, “To be honest, I thought they were made up out of thin air.” The Judges inquired about what made him believe so, but the witness could not provide details on how M. treated patients since they often worked independently. P41 said that he did not hear about M. having been deployed externally on missions, and clearly rejected the assumption that civilian doctors were permitted to. He further denied having heard of any conflict between M. and a colleague during their time in Homs. Upon questioning, he further denied knowing that M. was requested to work in a field hospital, nor did he know of details that M. had "unconventional" methods of treatment.

Plaintiffs’ Counsel Bahn wanted to know what the witness could tell the Court about Division 40, but a back and forth of questions revealed that the witness had no information and treated patients that were brought from the branch like any other patient before they were transferred back. M. asked several questions regarding the Facebook group and certain individuals, above all, whether two individuals with the identical last name were relatives which the witness denied due to their differing religions. Wondering whether in Syria mixed marriages among Muslims and Christians were prohibited, the session was adjourned referring to the possibility of summoning an ethnologist.

Day 133 – June 4, 2024

In today's trial session, a new witness appeared in court. [Redacted name], P41, is a thirty-nine-year-old [redacted information]. He was born and raised in [redacted location], where he attended school until [redacted time] and studied medicine until he graduated in [redacted time]. After that he began his medical training at Al-Mazzeh Military Hospital in [redacted time] and completed it in [redacted time]. During this period, he rotated to other hospitals, such as a hospital in [redacted location] in [redacted time] and Tishreen Military Hospital from [redacted time] to [redacted time]. On [redacted time], he arrived in Germany on a Job Seeker visa and worked in a hospital with a temporary work permit until the hospital closed for financial reasons. The Judges wondered how P41 was allowed to work in Germany since they learned that he did not have a medical license. P41 explained that under certain conditions, one can work using a temporary work permit.

Whenever asked about his working conditions, the witness appeared very defensive. Although the Judges requested - at the beginning and several times throughout the hearing - that he testify in Arabic, the witness kept switching back and forth between German and Arabic. The Judges had to ask him repeatedly to switch back to Arabic whenever they could not understand him. Often, the witness answered questions that the Judges did not ask since he misunderstood questions which the interpreter eventually had to clarify for him.

After Presiding Judge Koller asked him to explain the differences between the functions of military and civilian hospitals, P41 explained that his contract at the military hospital was a civilian-doctor-contract; that he did not roll in the army and had nothing to do with it; that his contract ended as soon as his medical training ended; and that he was affiliated with the Ministry of Health rather than the Ministry of Defense. Judge Koller told P41 that this was not his question and restated the question. P41 replied that military hospitals were assigned to treat military personnel, officers and their families, while civilian hospitals were responsible for the whole nation. Furthermore, Koller wanted P41 to explain the hierarchy among the doctors in the military hospitals. P41 explained that the power was definitely in the hands of the military doctors who held the top positions and that the civilian doctors were only residents.

Judge Koller noted that the unrest in Syria started in 2011 and wanted to know how it affected P41's personal and professional life. P41 explained that the situation in Damascus was relatively calm in the beginning of the unrest compared to other hotspots. Doctors were forced to work 15 shifts per month. Military hospitals were more responsible for the injured members of the military while civilians were sent for treatment in civilian hospitals. Koller asked what types of injuries were brought to the hospital. P41 replied that the injuries ranged from gunshots, burns, shrapnel, and occasionally knife stabs.

In the ensuing questions, Judge Koller wanted to know if there were civilian patients in military hospitals. P41 replied that military forces brought in some [redacted information] injured civilians. Koller wanted to know where these patients were placed. After some confusion in understanding the question which the interpreter clarified, P41 explained that the patients were in a special section in the [redacted information]. Upon request for more details about the condition of the detainees, P41 said that they were weak, skinny, and exhausted. Following a reminder by the Judges of his statement to the police, P41 admitted that he saw [redacted information] detainees once or twice. Again, the Judges quoted the transcript of the police questioning in which P41 stated that detainees were often [redacted information], stressing, the ‘often’. P41 replied that they were indeed often [redacted information] but in the [redacted information] department. He added that military doctors determined who should be sent to the department [ward], therefore only a few [redacted information] detainees arrived there. “Aha... So it was like that…,” Koller commented. Seemingly frustrated that he had to quote the police transcript several times because of the witness's incomplete answers, Koller sighed and reminded P41 of his obligation to provide complete answers.

The Presiding Judge wanted to know whether and how P41 treated the detained patients. P41 confirmed that he examined some of them but added that removing the [redacted information] was something that neither the hospital administration nor the doctors in charge of those detainees allowed. P41 denied that guards or intelligence personnel were present during the patient examination. The Judges wanted to know how the detainees were treated. P41 replied that it was not ideal; the building was old, the number of patients per room was high, and sterilization was scarce. Regarding the mistreatment of the detained patients, P41 told the Judges that the military personnel insulted and beat the detainees they brought to the hospital. Whether the hospital staff participated in mistreatment was denied by P41.

After that, Judge Rhode asked if P41 intervened when the patients were being beaten. P41 confirmed that he did and asked the military personnel to stop. Albeit it was difficult because he had to calm the military personnel down, according to the witness, it worked. Rhode wanted to know why the military personnel beat the patients. P41 replied that there was a resentment between both sides because of the exchange of shooting and the injuries they inflicted on each other, as they were adversarial parties to a conflict. Upon further questioning, P41 said that he intervened and asked to stop the beating once or twice. Rhode asked if there were consequences for P41 and whether someone else also intervened. P41 recalled that as a doctor, he had to examine and treat patients; it was his duty. He added that he was careful in such situations lest he cause trouble and that he certainly heard from other doctors that they intervened to stop the beating as well. The Judges were surprised and pointed out that they heard many witness testimonies about the treatment at Al-Mazzeh Hospital and got the impression that such an intervention was very difficult and could lead to the doctor's arrest. Therefore, Rhode wanted to know the names of those colleagues. P41 only remembered [redacted name], who is a Christian and still in Syria, not Germany. After Rhode confirmed that P41 was an Orthodox Christian, he asked about the religion of the other doctors who intervened to stop the beating. P41 responded that they were of different religions.

***

[15-minutes-break]

***

Upon returning from the break, Presiding Judge Koller wanted to know if P41 had seen or heard about signs of abuse on the patients' bodies. Since P41 denied, Koller quoted the police transcript where P41 stated that the bruises on the patients' bodies could only be explained as a result of torture. P41 confirmed and added that he could not determine whether the beatings were done by hand or with objects. P41 further recalled hearing the patients being cursed loudly and some of them were moaning on beds adjacent to the patient P41 was examining. However, P41 continued, he did not know whether the moans and screams were due to beatings or medical pain. Koller wondered how P41 disregarded having a look at the patient next to him to make sure the patient was okay. P41 replied that the doctors could not take care of all the patients because there were too many of them. He further explained that there were nurses looking after other patients, and that these were individual cases that did not occur regularly. Koller replied that even if they were individual cases, it is still grievous.

Judge Rhode noted that P41 explained that detainees were placed in the [redacted information] and asked if there were other places where the detainees were kept. P41 answered that there was another section for detainees in the [redacted information] that was guarded by the military. P41 believed that patients were placed there after major surgeries or for security reasons. When Rhode asked what P41 meant by this, the witness explained that it was a security or military issue and related to interrogations [of those particular detainees]. P41 added that accessing that section was restricted to military doctors, and although access to civilian doctors was rare, P41 entered once.

Furthermore, Judge Rhode wanted to know if P41 heard about death cases in the hospital. P41 admitted that he heard from his colleagues that [some of] the patients they treated died later. In response to another question, P41 said he did not know if there was any indication that there were dead people. Although there was a [bad] smell in the hospital, P41 could not determine if it was the smell of corpses. P41 did not also know where the corpses were kept as they [i.e. the civilian doctors] were not responsible for them.

Inquiring about the detainees, Judge Rhode asked if P41 talked with his colleagues about them. P41 denied and said that apart from talking with the military doctor in charge of the detainees, it was not allowed. When Rhode asked what consequences P41 feared if he talked about them, P41 replied that he had family in Syria and did not want to endanger them. Koller reminded P41 that he previously told the Judges that he was not threatened, which P41 admitted but added that he feared for them regardless.

***

[60-minutes-break]

***

After the break, Judge Rhode wanted to know how and who delivered the detainees to the hospital. P41 explained that the detainees were transported in microbuses and brought to the emergency department by [redacted information] Intelligence personnel. P41 did not recall the specific numbers of the intelligence branches to which the personnel belonged; therefore the Judges reminded him that it was Division 40, according to P41’s statement to the police.

Switching to another topic, Judge Rhode asked about civilian doctors who changed their workplace from Al-Mazzeh Hospital to other civilian hospitals and wanted to know why they did that. P41 confirmed that there were doctors who transferred and said he heard that the reasons were [redacted information] as well as [redacted information]. When Rhode asked him about their religion, P41 replied that they were [redacted information]. Judge Rhode asked P41 if the situation was difficult for his [redacted information] colleagues in Al-Mazzeh Hospital. P41 replied that he did not notice that but heard people saying that the political situation in the country was not right and that it should be dealt with differently. Rhode wanted to know if [redacted information] were in trouble or were isolated in the hospital. P41 denied and said that he did not feel that properly. “Okay, and improperly?” Rhode asked. P41 replied that he did not have issues with them, but maybe others did.

After that, Rhode asked for the names of P41’s colleagues who worked with him at the same department. P41 mentioned [redacted names]. Rhode then noted that P41 was a Christian and wanted to know if he had contact with other Christian doctors such as P38, P26, P28, P36, and P40. P41 explained that their relationship was exclusively work related and added that his friends were only [redacted names].

Judge Koller then addressed the topic relevant to the Accused and wanted to know how and when P41 got to know M. P41 said that in 2012, his uncle's wife - who is originally from the Accused's village - told him about M. and that he was working at Al-Mazzeh Hospital, after which P41 got to know M. in the emergency department. Upon questioning by Koller, P41 could not further specify when he met M. P41 did not recall many personal details about M. as they did not work together much. Speaking of which, Koller wanted to know if M. was pleasant to work with. P41 replied that he had no issues with M., but he heard from others a different perspective. P41 noticed that M.'s self-confidence was overly exaggerated but heard from others that M. was arrogant and ostentatious. Koller asked how P41 inferred that M. was overconfident. P41 said that M. was overconfident when deciding how severe an injury was, for example. Koller suggested that P41 was unable to express himself well due to language barriers and gave the example of an 18-year-old woman who had just received her driver's license and owned a Ferrari. She immediately got in her car and headed to the highway driving at 300 kilometers per hour [186.4 miles per hour]. Koller said that this woman is overconfident. Koller then asked the witness if there was something from which P41 inferred that M. was overconfident. P41 apologized and said he did not remember.

The Presiding Judge announced the end of today's hearing, to be continued in the next session.

The proceedings were adjourned at 2:58PM.

The next trial day will be on June 6, 2024, at 10AM.

Day 134 – June 6, 2024

On this trial day, the Judges resumed the questioning of P41. Again, the witness spoke German most of the time but requested assistance from the interpreter, Mr. Farrag, frequently. Throughout the session, P41 alternated between German and Arabic consistently. The Judges started by questioning P41 about M.'s decision making confidence which he referred to during the end of the previous session. The witness recalled an incident where M. decided not to consult a specialist during an emergency but decided himself instead. P41 confirmed the Judges’ conclusion that M. was overstepping his competence at that moment but P41 did not recall any further events exemplifying his judgment about M. Upon questioning, the witness was unable to give concrete details why he characterized M. as rather pro-regime as he had also testified during the previous session and only inferred M.’s stance from general conversations. P41 denied having heard something in particular but concluded so from M.'s direct and indirect statements. Whether P41 had heard M. denouncing demonstrators was denied. P41, however, recalled that a person named [redacted name] had made comments about difficulties with working with M., but the witness was unable to give specific details about this memory explaining that he did not investigate further and apologized that these events took place more than 12 years ago to which the Judges expressed their understanding.

Upon further questioning, the witness recounted that M. had an injury and connected it to a time when the witness was working in Tishreen in mid 2013 and returned to Mazzeh 601. He concluded that M. must have suffered the injury at the end of [redacted time]. Confronted with the possibility that it happened at the end of [redacted time], P41 said that this was a possibility, but he nonetheless recalled the above mentioned and linked his memory to his own return to Al-Mazzeh 601 in mid 2013. Upon questioning by the Judges, P41 said he did not have a memory of having seen M. in Mazzeh again after his return, the last time was at a wedding in 2015 which he clarified with his parents between the two Court hearings. He did not see M. again in Germany nor did they have any contact. The Judges were interested in how P41 learned about the allegations against M. He heard about through a Facebook group called "Syrian doctors in Germany" where the investigation by Der Spiegel was posted. He did not recall whether there were comments below the post in the group but said that it was possible that a member was the administrator and moderated the commentary meaning that comments by the group were blocked to prevent problems. Asked about his own opinion about the truth of the accusations, P41 said that he does not remember. Questioned if he was not interested, P41 replied that he simply did not notice anything. When Judge Rhode asked whether he had any indicators pointing to the truthfulness of the accusations or if he believed that they were made up out of thin air, the witness responded, “To be honest, I thought they were made up out of thin air.” The Judges inquired about what made him believe so, but the witness could not provide details on how M. treated patients since they often worked independently. According to the witness, when they worked together in the ER, M. worked normally and did not exaggerate except for one time he explained.

Subsequently, the Judges wanted to know if the witness knew about external missions. P41 said that he did not hear about M. having been deployed externally on missions, and clearly rejected the assumption that civilian doctors were permitted to. He further denied having heard of any conflict between M. and a colleague during their time in Homs. Upon questioning, he further denied knowing that M. was requested to work in a field hospital, nor did he know of details that M. had "unconventional" methods of treatment. After having posed these typical questions which all witnesses were thus far asked, the Judges issued a break to discuss before giving the word to the parties of the proceedings.

***

[15-minutes-break]

***

Upon return, Judge Kriewald asked the witness to recount in which year of training he was and to compare it with that of M. P41 assumed that they were in the same year and denied Kriewald’s question whether there was a hierarchy between them when the incident related to the competence happened. P41 clarified that it would nonetheless have been M.’s duty to consult with the specialist, but it generally only concerned a difference of opinion between him and M. Judge Rhode then wanted to know if P41 served the mandatory military service which the witness denied explaining that he was repeatedly excused during his medical studies and the training. He explained that he had to submit proof from the respective medical institution each year approximately in

[redacted time] which was submitted to the authorities and added to the military booklet. According to the witness, rotations were not detailed in the booklet, only the fact that the medical training continued. The Judges had no further questions and issued a short coffee break before the parties would pose their questions.

***

[30-minutes-break]

***

Judge Koller apologized for the delay and asked the Prosecutors if they had questions which both denied. Plaintiffs' Counsel Bahns, acknowledging that it was rare that he had any questions, was interested in whether P41 knew what happened to patients who were brought by the military intelligence Division 40. The witness replied that he had no memory of Division 40. Bahns confronted him with the infamous reputation, but the witness recalled only that the branches had numbers but nothing specific. Bahn kept asking what he knew about Division 40 and the witness recounted that the nurses told the doctors from which branches the patients arrived. Bahns interrogated whether the branch would lead to certain consequences, for instance, for the treatment of the patients but the witness denied. The only memory P41 recounted relating to Division 40 concerned the fact that a specialist doctor accompanied the patients and was responsible for the handovers. According to P41, he and his colleagues were only allowed to speak to this doctor and only treated patients in their hospital until they were transferred back. Questioned by Counsel Bahns, the witness assumed that security and surveillance in the hospital was done by soldiers, not the intelligence personnel.

The Defense Counsel did not have questions. Only M. asked several questions regarding the Facebook group and certain individuals. M. wanted to know how many members the group "Syrian doctors in Germany" had, which the witness estimated at more than [redacted information], but many are still in Syria. M. further inquired the witness about the head of the clinic in Al-Mazzeh, [redacted name], and a friend of the witness, [redacted name], who shared the same last name. M. wanted to know if they were relatives. After recalling that [redacted name] was a Muslim and [redacted name] a Christian from [redacted location], P41 excluded any relation and M. said “Exactly, thank you, no further questions.”

After the witness was dismissed, Counsel Endres wanted to know if “mixed marriages” among Christians and Muslims were prohibited in Syria and if the Court could ask the interpreter Mr. Farrag for his expertise. The Presiding Judge, acknowledging that this would be an interesting question, referred Counsel Endres to file a motion stimulating the Court to take certain evidence [a so-called Beweisanregung]. On the one hand, Koller explained, the Court could not, procedurally, refer to Mr. Farrag as an expert since he was sworn in as an interpreter, and on the other hand, Koller concluded that this would have to be explored, for instance, by an ethnologist.

The proceedings were adjourned at 12:15 PM

The next trial day will be on June 10, 2024, at 10AM.

___________________________

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