Inside the Alaa M. Trial #78: Those Who Live in Glass Houses…

Higher Regional Court – Frankfurt, Germany

Trial Monitoring Summary #78

Hearing Date: June 25 & 27, 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 78th trial monitoring report details days 137 and 138 of the trial of Alaa M. in Frankfurt, Germany. On the first trial day this week, an officer from the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) appeared in court and was asked about details of the questioning he conducted with P29 in the police.

The following trial day, a document from the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA) was translated. The name of two witnesses who were detained in Syria at Branch 261 were mentioned in the document. As was his and his team’s practice, Defense Counsel Endres tried to stir the pot against SJAC's trial monitor. The Accused then explained in a statement the chat conversations he had with his father, uncle, wife, and Aktham Suleiman.

Day 137 – June 25, 2024

At the beginning of today's session, Presiding Judge Koller noted that M.'s wife was not allowed to see him in the courthouse. M. asked the Court to allow him to see her for just two minutes, as he longs to hear her voice. Prosecutor Schlepp pointed out that Mr. Deußing was on vacation, therefore, the Defense Team should try to contact the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) by phone rather than by email for faster response. [Accused persons are normally allowed to receive visitors at the detention facility so it was not clear why M.’s wife appeared in court.]

The witness, Mr. Kesel, a BKA officer, then entered the courtroom. He was questioned about the questionings he conducted with witnesses who appeared in court. The Judges' questions first revolved around P29's police questioning. For the most part, Kesel echoed what P29 stated to the police. The Judges reiterated the most important questions they asked P29 during his in-court testimony. [Note: For more details about P29's testimony, see Trial Report #63]. After that, the transcript of P29's questioning was shown in court. The officer was asked about a few corrections in the transcript that P29 had made during the retranslation of the police transcript. The Judges then briefly asked about other witnesses. Apart from the Judges, only Defense Counsel Bonn questioned the witness and had two questions before the session was adjourned.

The proceedings were adjourned at 11:41AM

The next trial day will be on June 27, 2024, at 10AM.

Day 138 – June 27, 2024

Presiding Judge Koller began the second trial session this week by announcing new trial days through October 2024. Mr. Farrag then appeared in court as a linguistic expert to translate documents from the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA). The documents were issued by Branch 261 and listed events that allegedly took place in Homs province on [redacted time] 2011 and included the names of injured parties in these events. The part most relevant to the trial listed the names of detainees in the Branch, including P8, his brother [redacted name], and P11. [Note: TR#23, 24, 25 and 26 detail the testimony of P8, while TR#28, 29, 31 and 32 detail P11’s testimony.]

Defense Counsel Al-Agi asked the linguistic expert to explain the term “The three names.” Mr. Farrag clarified that in some Arab countries, the full name consists of the first name; the father’s name; and the family name. Upon questioning by Al-Agi, the linguistic expert acknowledged that it is possible that “[redacted name]” was the father’s name.

Defense Counsel Endres - who was left alone by his colleagues, Bonn, who was not present this day, and Al-Agi, who left the session while the documents were being presented - complained that SJAC’s trial monitor was copying the documents from the screen, including the names of the dead and injured parties, insinuating that it could put the parties who are still alive in danger if SJAC’s trial monitor leaked their names. This motion diverted attention away from the substance of the allegations against M. and may be seen as an attempt to intimidate the trial monitor [NOTE: In a prior session, Defense Counsel Al-Agi was called to testify as a witness by the Judges regarding the origin of a document and was accused of leaking information about witnesses who were scheduled to appear in the trial. This information was only available to counsel in the case and was not shared with SJAC’s trial monitor beforehand. For more details, see TR#60].

Ignoring the presence of another trial monitor who was also copying the same information from the screen, Endres complained only about SJAC's trial monitor. After Presiding Judge Koller reminded him that the SJAC's trial monitor was allowed to take notes and that the hearing was public, Koller consulted with the Prosecution and the Plaintiff’s Counsel. Since they did not have an issue with it, Judge Koller dismissed Endres' complaint and carried on with the hearing.

***

[15-minutes-break]

***

After completing the translation of the document, Presiding Judge Koller referred to the request made by Defense Counsel Bonn on May 14, 2024 regarding the Accused's chat conversations with his uncle [redacted name], his father [redacted name], his wife [redacted name], and Aktham Suleiman أكثم سليمان. Judge Rhode asked the Accused to explain the communication he had with them. M. said he wanted to obtain a document that details the hospitals where he performed his medical training, but Ammar Suleiman عمار سليمان [director of the Administration of Military Medical Services] refused to give M. that document, reasoning that he would not give documents to anyone who cancels the contract with the Military Services. Therefore, M. continued, he attempted to get the document behind Ammar’s back - since it was M.’s right to get it anyways - and did not want Aktham Suleiman to know about the matter lest Aktham inform Ammar, which M. wanted to avoid, at the behest of the employee who issued the document. M. recounted that he contacted [redacted name] [P26’s and P28’s father] to intercede with Ammar Suleiman, but [redacted name] was unsuccessful as Ammar insisted on his position. Furthermore, M. contacted [redacted name], a urologist at Harasta Hospital, who was a relative of M.'s mother. When M. asked her to contact her relative, she cried, wondering how she would talk to someone she had only contacted two or three times in her life. After M. reached out to [redacted name], M. came back empty-handed since [redacted name] told M. that if [redacted name] had failed to mediate with Ammar, he should fail as well. M. added that he told his father and uncle that it was necessary for Aktham Suleiman to believe that M. obtained the document through his father so that Aktham would not create confusion with Ammar. M. admitted in court that he was too foolish to obtain the document when he was in Syria, since it was basically his right. Judge Rhode wanted to know if Aktham Suleiman and Ammar Suleiman were related, which M. denied explaining that he had asked Aktham about this before and Aktham replied that they are both Alawites, but their hometowns are different.

Judge Koller said that he still did not understand the role of the Accused's uncle and why he was involved in the conversations. M. responded that his uncle supported him psychologically and that [redacted name] [apparently his uncle's wife] helped him look for information on the internet (e.g. about P8). Regarding the statement in the indictment attributed to his uncle telling M. that he should take a “leap,” M. explained that his uncle meant that M. should take a vacation because the family was worried. Koller asked why M.'s uncle asked for a copy of a document. M. explained that his uncle asked when M. would be traveling to Syria and asked M. for his lawyer's phone number so that the uncle could communicate with him in English instead of M., as his uncle felt that M. might not have understood his lawyer well in German. Due to health conditions concerning Defense Counsel Endres, Presiding Judge Koller decided to end the hearing prematurely.

The proceedings were adjourned at 1:04PM

The next trial day will be on July 9, 2024, at 10:30AM.

___________________________

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