Inside the Alaa M. Trial #80: The President’s Slave

Higher Regional Court – Frankfurt, Germany

Trial Monitoring Summary #80

Hearing Date: July 15, 16 & 18, 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 80th trial monitoring report details days 141, 142 and 143 of the trial of Alaa M. in Frankfurt, Germany, one of the longest weeks so far. On the first trial day, a new witness appeared in court, who had worked with Alaa M. in Homs Military Hospital and who enjoyed witness protection (P45) for the proceedings. During his testimony, P45 detailed the severe mistreatment and systematic torture of patients at Homs Military Hospital. He described how individuals labeled as terrorists were subjected to abuse and torture, which began in the emergency department, where they were beaten, kicked, and insulted. Additionally, he explained that by the second half of 2011, the surgical department had been converted into a prison where detainees were tortured with electric cables. P45 specifically noted Alaa M.'s involvement in these acts, recounting two incidents in the emergency department where Alaa M. insulted and beat patients using his hands and a urinary catheter. He also witnessed Alaa M. pouring alcohol over a boy's genital area and setting it on fire. P45 further observed that despite being a civilian doctor, Alaa M. had access to the restricted areas of the hospital, including the surgical department and the prison.

On the second day this week, the Court questioned Mr. Christopher Engels from the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA). Mr. Engels explained CIJA's mission to collect evidence of war crimes in Syria, their methodologies, and funding sources. He described that CIJA conducts interviews with witnesses or defectors in Syria, posing open-ended questions to grasp the person's individual experience relating to specific topics, like criminality in detention facilities. Engels also described the Syrian Central Crisis Management Cell (CCMC) as a body established to suppress the uprising, composed of leaders from security services, the military, and political leadership, orchestrating policies from Damascus.

During the second part of the trial day, the Court questioned P45 again. P45 recounted in detail the incident where Alaa M. burned a boy's genitals with alcohol, and drew sketches of the emergency room and the positioning of those involved. P45 described other instances of abuse by Alaa M., and recounted Alaa M.'s habit of bragging about his acts of torture and referring to regime opponents as ‘cockroaches’.

On the third day this week, P45 characterized Alaa M. as impulsive and disrespectful of human life, referring to him as the President’s “slave” who followed orders without moral questioning. He also described that surgical operations were performed on patients without anesthesia, not due to a lack of painkillers but as a form of torture, with soldiers claiming they did not want to waste anesthesia on “those people.” A video was presented in court which depicted naked patients chained to beds in the surgery department repurposed as a prison. P45 identified the electric cables shown in the video as instruments of torture, although he did not witness their use himself. At the end of the session, the witness was dismissed.

Day 141 – July 15, 2024

On the first trial day this week, Presiding Judge Koller notified the parties that the Judges had taken cognizance of the wording of the police questioning transcripts of P38, P41, P42 and P35 in [redacted location] in November 2020 (self-reading procedure, Section 249 (2) German Code of Criminal Procedure). [Note: These transcripts had been discussed the prior week, on trial day 139. For more details, please see TR #79.] Alaa M. also read the transcript without needing the assistance of an interpreter.

This week, the Court was set to question a new witness who enjoyed witness protection (P45). Before P45 took the stand, the parties discussed a legal document from his lawyer, Ms. Mehner. In the document, the lawyer requested several measures to protect P45’s identity. The Judges expressed confusion about the document because they had discussed protection measures with the lawyer the week before during a phone call. The requested protection measures were then reviewed: The request for a voice changer was rejected by the Judges due to technical infeasibility. A dividing wall between the witness and the Defense side of the room was also rejected as it would infringe on the Accused’s right to examine the witness. Additionally, P45’s lawyer requested access to the files. The Defense vehemently protested this, and the Judges also rejected it. After a plea from Prosecutor Zabeck to resolve this unconfrontationally, the parties agreed to allow two protection measures. P45 was permitted to disguise his appearance and answer questions in English instead of his mother tongue, Arabic. The Judges were not pleased with the second measure but noted they had no means to force the witness to speak in a specific language. Also, P45’s lawyer could sit with him at the witness bench. After a short discussion with the lawyer, all parties agreed to these terms.

Judge Koller then introduced the interpreter, Mr. Farrag, for the Arabic language, who had been assisting the Court as a linguistic expert several times before. The Court also welcomed an interpreter for the English language, Ms. Fröhlich.

Then, P45 entered the courtroom, wearing a grey wig and big glasses, and covering his face with a hat. He was accompanied by two Federal Police (BKA) officers. Alaa M. twisted and turned to glance at the witness, keeping up this effort throughout the questioning.

Judge Koller greeted P45 and instructed him on his rights and duties as a witness. He informed P45 that the Judges preferred he spoke in his mother tongue, Arabic, to capture linguistic nuances but acknowledged they could not force him to do so. P45 told the English interpreter that he was too scared to speak in Arabic, fearing his accent would reveal his identity. During the proceedings, a setup was established where the Judges asked questions in German, which were translated to Arabic for the witness. P45 then whispered his answers in English to the English interpreter who then translated back to German.

Judge Koller initiated the questioning by asking about P45’s occupation in Syria in 2011. The witness replied that he worked in Homs Military Hospital but could not reveal his specific occupation to protect his identity. Judge Koller then inquired about the differences between military and civil hospitals. P45 explained that military hospitals treated soldiers and their families, while civil hospitals treated civilians. The Presiding Judge asked if the situation at Homs Military Hospital changed after the political unrest in Syria in spring 2011. P45 responded that the hospital became a place where regime protesters were tortured.

Judge Koller asked how these people arrived at the hospital. P45 did not know exactly but recalled some arriving in cars and others in ambulances or vans. Judge Koller wanted to know what happened to the patients upon arrival. He informed the witness that the Court needed an extensive, detailed statement, differentiating between firsthand observations and hearsay. P45 explained there were two types of patients: soldiers, treated as such and called by their names, and others labeled as terrorists who were mistreated and tortured from the moment they entered the hospital. Judge Koller asked for details on the torture methods. P45 described people being hit with hands and the buttstock of a Kalashnikov.

P45 continued, describing several doctors and nurses torturing patients, naming two specific individuals. He recalled a male nurse named [redacted name] [Note: this is how P45 spelled the name to the Court.] who slammed a patient's head against a wall, and [redacted name], who hit and insulted a patient. In another case, he saw the doctor [redacted name] doing the exact same thing. Alaa M. also hit people with his hand. Moreover, the witness saw Alaa M. using a urinary catheter to torture patients. The witness described that Alaa M. stretched the plastic cords and let them snap back forcefully to hurt the patients. He recalled that Alaa M. had tortured two patients in that way, using his hand and the urinary catheter. P45 remembered that Alaa M. also broke the right arm of a patient. In another incident which the witness recalled, Alaa M. tortured a child. The witness recalled that Alaa M. poured alcohol over the boy’s penis. The witness then remembered that the boy was still dressed, so he changed his testimony and said that Alaa M. poured the alcohol over the boy’s genital area. The boy had been held by a soldier who later also tried to turn off the fire. The soldier, visibly shocked, asked Alaa M., “Do you want to set everyone on fire?” P45 clarified that all the incidents he described took place in the emergency department.

Judge Rhode then asked about the system and organization of Homs Military Hospital, specifically if the torture was systematic or sporadic. P45 replied that torture in the emergency department was coincidental, depending on the staff.  However, what happened in the surgery department was systematic, with people being tied to their beds and connected to full urinary bags. In this department, people were also tortured with electric cables. The witness did not see the torture but saw the marks on the people and the electric cables. He also heard noises and screams while patients were being tortured.

The witness explained that only a few doctors and nurses were allowed to enter the surgical department. Two guards checked everyone who wanted to enter the department. Judge Rhode asked whether all patients were chained and whether some patients were also blindfolded. P45 started explaining that some people were labeled terrorists, and they were blindfolded when entering the emergency department.

At this point, Judge Koller, visibly irritated, ordered a break. He asked P45’s lawyer to explain to her client the need to provide context before details. Prosecutor Zabeck protested, saying the witness was doing so except when interrupted by the Judge. Nonetheless, the Court took a break.

***

[20-minutes-break]

***

After the break, Defense Counsel Endres expressed his discontent because the witness whispered into the interpreter’s ear, arguing that this falsified the personal impression. Judge Koller apologized for interrupting the witness and asked him to continue his testimony.

P45 explained that the surgical department in Homs Military Hospital was initially used like any other surgical department in a hospital but that its use changed at some point. The department became something like a prison, with two guards at the entrance. In this department, many patients were naked and chained to their beds, connected to full urinary bags. Their eyes were blindfolded so they could not see what was going on around them. The patients were tortured with electric cables, suffered from hunger and thirst, and were in overall poor condition. He reiterated that he did not witness acts of torture but saw the marks on the corpses afterward and heard screams coming from the surgical department. He continued by explaining that not everyone had access to the department. The hospital decided who had access, maintaining a list of authorized personnel, and others could only enter as replacements for those on the list who were absent due to illness.

The witness then described the emergency room, which is where most patients arrived and where their torture began. Some people were labeled as terrorists and were not called by their names but were given numbers. Normal patients were soldiers whose names were used. He explained that regular personnel in the hospital could not stop the torture because doing so would make them a target themselves. They had to stay quiet and could not show disapproval of the torture.

When asked about what he saw in the [redacted information] department, P45 remembered one patient who came into the hospital with tissue damage and broken bones from a gunshot wound. The witness recalled that the patient went missing the next day. A nurse told P45 that the patient had died. P45 was irritated about that, [redacted information].

Judge Koller asked the witness about a prison in Homs Military Hospital. P45 explained that in Syria, every military hospital also has a prison area. Access to the prison in Homs Military Hospital was restricted, and the witness remembered being there only once. There, he saw a patient who had been tortured before P45 arrived. He saw marks on the face and thorax of the half-naked man who was tied to a chair and blindfolded. The detainee was screaming, “I don’t know,” and the soldiers were laughing at him. One soldier spit at the detainee and said, “I’ll show you later.”

Judge Koller asked P45 to elaborate on the sanitary conditions of Homs Military Hospital. P45 explained that all departments, except for the surgical department, were as clean and hygienic as any other hospital. The surgical department, however, was no longer like a hospital department but resembled a prison.

Judge Rhode asked about the prison in which the witness had seen the tortured man and asked P45 to describe its location in the hospital complex. P45 explained that the prison was outside the main hospital building but still within the hospital grounds. It contained a room called “fridge,” rumored to store corpses. The main room where the detainees were kept had white walls and black stones. Judge Rhode asked whether P45 had ever witnessed staff meetings at the prison. P45 replied that the prison was hardly the place for such meetings. Judge Rhode wanted to know whether the prison had any ceremonial functions, such as when soldiers died and were laid to rest. P45 remembered that funerals always took place outside, not in the prison. He also remembered that during these funerals, people were tortured in the surgical department. He recalled this because he heard their screams, usually during the evening but sometimes in the morning.

Judge Rhode inquired who decided which persons had access to the prison area. P45 said he did not see the list but heard that [redacted name] decided who could enter the prison and the surgical department.  P45 explained that he knew [redacted name] to be a specialist doctor belonging to the military. He remembered that [redacted name] always wore military uniforms instead of the white coats other doctors wore. He was tall, tough, aggressive, and in good health. P45 heard rumors that [redacted name] was responsible for the security of the hospital and not only participated in the torture of victims but also supervised it. P45 even heard rumors that [redacted name] killed a detainee but could not remember details.

***

[60-minutes-break]

***

After the break, Judge Rhode continued questioning the witness. He wanted to know which doctors had access to the prison at Homs Military Hospital. P45 replied that he had not seen the list with the names of doctors allowed in but remembered the following names: [redacted name], [redacted name], Alaa M. and [redacted name]. He also remembered that the nurse [redacted name] had access. Then, P45 was asked to describe the situation in which he saw Alaa M. enter the prison area. P45 recollected seeing Alaa M. entering the surgical department in the second half of 2011 but he did not know what Alaa M. was doing there. However, he noticed that the soldier guarding the entrance recognized Alaa M. and did not check his ID, which he normally did for others trying to enter the surgical department.

Judge Rhode then asked P45 to describe in more detail the incident in the emergency department where he had seen Alaa M. beat a patient with a urinary catheter. P45 remembered that Alaa M. often carried the urinary catheter in the pocket of his clothes. The witness recalled that Alaa M. used it several times to torture patients. The witness then described two incidents in detail when he witnessed Alaa M. torturing a blindfolded and shackled patient with a urinary catheter in the emergency room.  Judge Rhode asked whether Alaa M. was regularly carrying the urinary catheter. P45 confirmed.

***

[15-minutes-break]

***

Judge Rhode inquired whether Alaa M. had also used a tourniquet to torture patients. He explained that he posed this question because the witness had differentiated between the urinary catheter and the tourniquet in his statement with the police. P45 declared that he might have used the word tourniquet to describe the urinary catheter because the latter can also be used as a tourniquet. This is how he explained the different words. However, he reaffirmed that he meant that Alaa M. hit the patients with a urinary catheter in the two incidents he described.

P45 spoke in more detail about the incident in which Alaa M. burned the genital area of a boy. [Note: The details of this incident are redacted to protect the witness.] At this moment, P45 was visibly struggling and asked for a break.

***

[20-minutes-break]

***

After the break, Judge Koller reassured the witness that they would only continue the questioning on that day for another forty-five minutes.

Judge Rhode asked P45 if he remembered what the boy screamed. P45 remembered that he screamed out of fear and shouted at the soldiers to let go of him. Upon request, P45 slowly explained all of Alaa M.’s movements in the incident. [Note: The details of this incident are redacted to protect the witness.]

Judge von Arnim suggested a break for the witness to collect himself.

***

[5-minutes-break]

***

After the break, the witness continued to give vivid details about the incident. The memory visibly emotionalized P45 and he needed to pause. Judge Rhode asked him whether he remembered saying something about an uncle in the police questioning. P45 affirmed, explaining that in Syria, children and young people refer to older men as uncles. This is what he had meant in the police questioning.

In that moment, Alaa M. expressed his disbelief loudly. He had been shaking his head several times during P45’s testimony and said that the accusations were not true. Judge Rhode reprimanded him and said that this was interrupting the questioning.

Judge Rhode asked the witness whether he remembered the age of the boy. P45 explained that he thought the boy to be around [redacted information] years old.  [Note: The witness substantiated this conclusion in detail. To protect the witness, these details are redacted.]

Lastly, Judge Rhode asked P45 about the way in which Alaa M. wore his coat. P45 expounded that Alaa M. wore [redacted information]. Other doctors buttoned up their doctor’s coat, but Alaa M. did not. P45 also assumed that the sleeves of the coat had been rolled up because it was not winter.

At the end of the third longest day in the trial so far, Judge Koller thanked the witness for his testimony and dismissed him for the day. His questioning was set to continue the next day at 1:30 PM.

The proceedings were adjourned at 5:20 PM.

The next trial day will be on July 16, 2024, at 10 AM.

Day 142 – July 16, 2024

In the second session this week, the Court questioned Mr. Christopher Engels from the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA). Presiding Judge Koller informed Mr. Engels that, although he had been summoned as a witness, he could also be helpful as an expert, and accordingly, instructed him on his rights and duties in both capacities.

To begin with, Judge Koller asked Mr. Engels about his professional career. Mr. Engels explained that he has gained experience as an international lawyer since 2004. For the past ten years, Engels has been working for CIJA. He is the director for investigations and operations and oversees the work in several countries and the Islamic State investigations.

When asked about the purpose, foundation, and financing of CIJA, Engels explained that CIJA is a Dutch foundation based in The Hague. Originally founded as the Syria Commission for International Justice, it expanded its focus and was renamed CIJA. The idea behind CIJA is to collect evidence of war crimes while the conflict is still ongoing. To this end, documents were collected in areas from which the Syrian regime had withdrawn. Additionally, CIJA identified witnesses who might be helpful in future cases. CIJA shifted its focus to gathering evidence for use in domestic tribunals, given that most Syrian conflict cases were likely to be prosecuted there. Then, CIJA passed summaries of these testimonies to the law enforcement authorities. Today, most of CIJA’s work is responding to requests from law enforcement authorities. They receive around 250 requests per year from several European and North American countries.

Engels also described the methodology of their witness questioning. Engels stated that CIJA has interviewers (he called them “investigators”) in Syria. The interviewers try to identify and contact witnesses based on their network in Syria. Mostly, they interview eyewitnesses or defectors who turned away from the Syrian regime. The interviewers receive initial training and multiple formal additional training courses every following year. They ask open-ended questions and follow up on things that might be relevant. In addition to general questions, the interviewers may also ask about specific topics, such as situations of criminality in detention facilities or names of people in power to establish hierarchies of responsibility. The interview is almost always conducted by one interviewer in Arabic who takes notes during the interview. Afterwards, the interviewer summarizes these notes and uploads the summary to CIJA's database. The database is searchable and can be used by CIJA's analysts if they receive requests from law enforcement offices.

Over the course of its existence, CIJA has received government funding from several countries, including the UK, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, US, Canada, Switzerland, and Norway. Currently, they receive funding from Germany, the UK, and the US for their work on the Syrian conflict. Judge Koller asked Engels whether the funding countries have any influence on the work that CIJA conducts. Engels admitted that these countries have a degree of influence on CIJA’s work by deciding which projects they fund. They do not have any influence on the content of the work or the analytical products or focus that CIJA sets. When CIJA receives requests from law enforcement authorities, they usually do not know what the underlying case is about and just share their available information objectively.

Then, Judge Adlhoch asked Engels what he knew about the Syrian Central Crisis Management Cell (CCMC). Engels elaborated that CCMC was created to manage the crisis in Syria. It consisted of leaders of security services, representatives of the military, and members of the political leadership. They coordinated the making and implementation of policies to suppress the uprising against the regime. According to Engels’ understanding, based on the documents made available to CIJA, the orders originated in Damascus and spread to other governorates. President Assad was the decision-maker and was supported by military intelligence, state security, general intelligence, political security, and the Ministry of Defense.

Engels explained that the CCMC was created in March 2011. Two documents dated April 18, 2011, and April 20, 2011, demonstrated the level of escalation. The document from April 18 allows for negotiation with the protesters, whereas the document from April 20, just two days later, prescribes the use of force. In August 2011, the military and security services established a joint military service compound with explicit instructions to detain and interrogate adversaries of the regime. The targeted individuals included protest organizers, financiers, members of coordinating committees, opposition members and those who posted critical media content.

Judge Adlhoch wanted to know how CIJA obtained the documents from April and August 2011 that Engels had mentioned. Engels explained that the documents from April 2011 were copies of decisions sent out to all regions. They were discovered in the Military Security Branch in Idlib after the Syrian regime had withdrawn from the region. CIJA was not actively searching for these documents. Instead, someone from Idlib found them and sent them to CIJA upon learning that the organization was collecting evidence. Engels noted that only a small portion of documents found by or made available to CIJA came from Damascus, while the majority were found in other regions of Syria.

Then, Judge Adlhoch wondered how Engels knew that the documents were authentic. Engels provided several reasons. He explained that the documents were found bundled together in an abandoned military intelligence office in Idlib. This bundle was considered authentic because the language and style of the documents were consistent with other CCMC documents found elsewhere. Additionally, the documents were corroborated by the fact that many of the events described in them actually occurred. The documents from April 2011 differed from most other documents found in one significant way: they did not have a fax number. However, this can be explained by the fact that the security services had their documents delivered by hand. The documents from April 2011 originated from this security services office.

The witness was then presented with a scan of a document written in Arabic, which was also projected onto screens for the public audience. Judge Adlhoch asked Engels if he recognized this document. Engels confirmed and identified it as the document from April 20, 2011. He was also shown another document, retrieved from Idlib, which he recognized by CIJA’s file number. Additionally, another document was displayed, featuring a long list of names written in Arabic. Engels identified it because several similar lists had been handed over to CIJA. [Note: The trial monitor could not determine what the list pertained to, as it was not translated publicly.] Engels was then shown another list very similar to the previous one, which he recognized by CIJA’s barcode and number.

***

[15-minutes-break]

***

After the break, Judge Rhode sought to clarify a discrepancy regarding the origin of the last list shown. The list displayed the number 261, which was associated with military branches in Homs, but it was allegedly found in Idlib, where military branches were assigned the number 271. Engels addressed this discrepancy by explaining that most orders were issued from Damascus. However, there were also orders and information exchanged horizontally between different regions. Therefore, it was not unusual for the document to bear the military branch number of Homs.

Judge Adlhoch referred to the interviews CIJA conducted in Syria and specifically inquired whether CIJA had questioned witnesses about military hospitals. Engels confirmed this. He explained that through interviews focused on abuse in detention, they found out that abuse in military hospitals was a recurring theme. Consequently, CIJA later included targeted questions about witnesses' experiences in hospitals and sought to identify witnesses who had been abused there.

Judge Adlhoch sought clarifications regarding several witnesses who had been interviewed by CIJA about their experiences in Homs. She specifically wanted to know how the interview with [redacted name], P15, came about. Engels replied that he did not recall the exact details of this interview, as CIJA had conducted approximately 2,500 to 3,000 interviews in Syria. With the Judges' permission, Engels reviewed his notes to provide an answer. He presented that the interview with P15 took place at [redacted information] in [redacted time] 2020 and that P15 had been referred to the interviewer by a mutual friend.

Judge Adlhoch then drew Engels's attention to a document that CIJA had provided to the Court on January 14, 2022, which listed several witnesses who had been detained in Branch 261 [note: for more details, please see TR #78]. She wanted to know how these interviews came about. Engels responded that the process was similar to the previously discussed cases. He cited the example of witness 067 [Note: number given by CIJA], who was the husband of a former witness, and witness 142, who was a neighbor of an interviewer. Judge Adlhoch inquired whether these interviews were specifically conducted to gather information on Branch 261. Engels confirmed that they were seeking information from individuals held in military and ad hoc detention facilities. Judge Adlhoch also asked if the topic of doctors was addressed during CIJA’s interviews. Engels confirmed this as well but clarified that it occurred only randomly.

Next, Judge Adlhoch wanted to know about the names of two potential witnesses, [redacted name] and [redacted name] [P31], which CIJA had sent to the Court on July 31 and August 5, 2020. Engels explained that these two witnesses were doctors referred to CIJA by another doctor. There are no records of CIJA interviewing them because they were not in Syria when their names were brought up, and by that time, the proceedings in this Court had already begun. In such cases, CIJA does not interview the witnesses but leaves it to the law enforcement authorities.

Judge Adlhoch also inquired about witness 944. Engels explained that a friend of this witness facilitated the connection with CIJA. The witness was interviewed in September 2020 to provide a statement regarding his past work in the military hospital. He stated that he worked at the Homs Military Hospital until he left in 2011 and witnessed several instances of abuse there. According to the witness, the abuse was mainly done by [redacted name], Alaa M. and [redacted name]. The witness mentioned that one of these doctors had poured alcohol on a patient’s penis and set it on fire, but he could not recall which doctor had committed this act.

Lastly, Judge Adlhoch inquired about witness 035. Engels said this witness was recommended by one of his family members. However, because he lives in a regime-controlled military territory, he no longer wished to participate in any legal proceedings. Despite this, Engels read out the summary of witness 035’s statement from CIJA. The witness reported that he was admitted to the hospital after being injured while detained. In the hospital, he was perceived as supporting the opposition and was subjected to abuse and threats. He mentioned that doctors had suggested amputating his leg due to his injury. However, having seen many others undergo amputations and operations without anesthesia, he refused the amputation.

No further questions were posed to Engels, and he was dismissed.

***

[60-minutes-break]

***

After the lunch break, P45 was questioned again. He wanted to recount the incident in which Alaa M. burned the boy’s genitals, as he had experienced flashbacks since the last session and now recalled the details more clearly. He described the situation again in great detail. [Note: To protect the witness, these details are withheld.] Judge Rhode inquired whether it was soldiers or nurses who were holding the boy. P45 replied that both were soldiers, wearing military uniforms and no white coats. Judge Rhode then asked the witness if he had seen these soldiers before. P45 said that he does not remember. Judge Rhode refreshed the witness’s memory by reading from the police questioning transcript, where the witness had stated that the abuse in the emergency department always involved the same soldiers, two of whom were involved in the incident with the boy. P45 said he still did not know the names of these two soldiers. He explained that he had a list of people involved in the torture and that if these two soldiers had been involved in multiple instances of abuse, their names would have been on that list, but they were not. P45 concluded that it must have been a misunderstanding in the police questioning.

Then, Judge Rhode asked whether the boy was standing or sitting on a hospital bed. P45 remembered that the boy was standing, being pushed against the wall by the two soldiers. The emergency room was very busy, and no nurse had the time to attend to the boy. Judge Rhode asked P45 to draw a sketch of the emergency room and the situation with the boy. P45 did so. P45 also included a sketch of the incident he had described the day before, involving the mistreatment of a patient with the urinary catheter in one of the rooms in the emergency department. Judge Rhode asked P45 to elaborate on this sketch. P45 explained that the situation took place in one of the rooms in the emergency department.  Alaa M. hit the patient with his hand, but P45 did not remember which hand was used. The patient screamed after being hit. Then, Alaa M. flicked the urinary catheter at the patient’s face. The patient tried to hide his face with his arm. The second flick with the urinary catheter struck the back of the patient’s head. P45 also provided details about his own location during the incident.

Next, Judge Rhode inquired about the incident with the boy again. P45 elaborated that it happened in the second half of 2011. Judge Rhode and P45 discussed the time of day when the incident occurred. P45 said he does not remember but knew it was neither early morning nor evening. P45 also did not remember where the boy was taken after the incident.

***

[15-minutes-break]

***

Judge Rhode asked the witness whether he had heard anything about the boy’s fate. P45 replied that he had not heard anything. Judge Rhode wanted to know whether Alaa M. had said anything about the boy. P45 denied. He then asked for a break to consult with his lawyer.

***

[10-minutes-break]

***

Judge Koller explained to the witness that the Judges were very conscious of not putting him in danger. He asked him to inform the Judges if he did not feel comfortable answering a question, rather than giving a false answer as he had just done. P45 apologized, saying that he sometimes forgets things but that memories resurface later. He promised to follow Judge Koller’s instructions.

After trying to clarify discrepancies, Judge Rhode wanted to know why Alaa M. might have talked about the burning. P45 explained that Alaa M. was proud of torturing people. He referred to them as cockroaches and made crushing motions with his foot as if he were going to crush them. P45 recalled that Alaa M. generally displayed this attitude towards people who did not support the regime. He also made the crushing motion after he had done something to a patient, but P45 did not remember in which situation this occurred.

Lastly, Judge Rhode asked whether P45 had ever seen an injury to Alaa M. and if his method of mistreating people had changed afterward. P45 recalled that Alaa M. had a bandage around his [redacted information] hand, which he remembered because it was the hand Alaa M. used to hold his cigarettes. P45 inferred that the injury was the result of Alaa M. hitting a patient on the head, as Alaa M. had mentioned that the patient had a “hard head.” P45 did not recall any change in Alaa M.'s method of mistreating people after the injury. He observed Alaa M. kicking other individuals, including in their testicles, but could not confirm if this occurred after Alaa M. injured his hand.

At the end of another exceptionally long day, Judge Koller thanked the witness for his testimony and dismissed him for the day. His questioning was set to continue the next day.

The proceedings were adjourned at 4:45 PM.

The next trial day will be on July 18, 2024, at 10:00 AM.

Day 143 – July 18, 2024

In the third session this week, Presiding Judge Koller notified the parties that the Judges had taken cognizance of the wording of the police questioning reports of [redacted name] from [redacted time] (self-reading procedure, Section 249 (2) German Code of Criminal Procedure). [Note: This report had been discussed the prior week, on trial day 140. For more details, please see TR #79.] Alaa M. also read the report without needing the assistance of an interpreter.

The Judges continued questioning P45 following days 141 and 142. The witness was assisted, again, by interpreter, Mr. Farrag, for the Arabic language and a new interpreter for the English language, Mr. Kurtz. A new lawyer for the witness, Ms. Studzinsky, was also present.

P45 described, in general terms, that Alaa M. committed various types of abuse towards patients in Homs Military Hospital. The witness recalled seeing Alaa M. kick patients, grab their testicles, hit them with his hand and a urinary catheter. Most times, he would target the patients’ heads. He remembered that Alaa M. rarely left patients alone and always mistreated them. Upon Judge Rhode’s question whether Alaa M. changed his methods after he had been injured, the witness clarified that he now remembered that after the injury, Alaa M. would mostly hit the stomach area, instead of the head. The witness explained that because Alaa M.’s hand was hurt, he did not want to hit ‘hard’ areas, like the head, but softer areas, like the stomach area. The witness stressed that he saw more than ten incidents in which Alaa M. mistreated patients.

The Judges reminded P45 that they needed a more detailed description of individual incidents. In response, P45 described several instances in more detail. He outlined two incidents in which he witnessed M. mistreating a patient and drew a sketch for one of them. He refused to testify about one other incident due to fear of revealing his identity.

After a short break, Judge Rhode asked P45 if he had heard of surgical operations performed on patients without anesthesia. The witness affirmed. He remembered hearing about these operations but did not see them. However, he saw the patients’ wounds before and after. He clarified that this was not due to a lack of painkillers or anesthesia in the hospital but only to torture the patients. He described that the soldiers stated that they did not want to waste anesthesia on “those people”. P45 remembered hearing rumors that Alaa M. was involved in these operations but had not seen it himself.

Recalling the situation when Alaa M. burned the genital area of a boy, Judge Rhode asked whether there were instances when Alaa M. acted alone or if the patient that he mistreated was always held by a soldier. P45 answered that mostly, when Alaa M. mistreated a patient, the patient was pressed against a wall, or his hands and feet were restrained. He then named several other doctors who also mistreated patients: [redacted name]; [redacted name] and a male nurse called [redacted name]. Judge Rhode asked whether the witness remembered a nurse called [redacted name]. P45 did not recall.

***

[15-minutes-break]

***

Judge Rhode asked P45 to describe Alaa M.’s character. The witness remembered Alaa M. receiving his medical training as an orthopedist. P45 said that Alaa M. was impulsive and irritable. Alaa M. had no respect for human life. He liked the Syrian President, and the witness described him as the President's “slave”, following orders without questioning their morality. He always sang a song about his love for the Syrian President. The witness said that Alaa M. had no real personality.

Upon questioning regarding Alaa M.’s relation with the military, P45 reported having seen Alaa M. in military uniform. He remembered Alaa M. being a civilian, not a military doctor. He mentioned that some doctors had connections to the military intelligence services. He heard rumors that Alaa M. was connected to the military intelligence services but had no documents or evidence proving Alaa M. worked for them. He heard these rumors while he was working in Homs Military Hospital in 2011. The witness described an argument between Alaa M. and a soldier who reprimanded him for wearing a military uniform despite not being a military doctor. In that incident, Alaa M. repeated the movement as if he would squash a cockroach. [Note: This had already been discussed on day 142.] Judge Rhode read out P45’s statement from the police questioning that Alaa M. had the rank of [first] lieutenant. The witness clarified that he did not see a badge but remembered that all doctors starting in the military begin as [first] lieutenants.

P45 was then asked about several other doctors from Homs Military Hospital. He said he did not know [redacted name] well but knew his cousin, [redacted name]. The witness described [redacted name] as at least 1,70m tall, wearing a beard which was not very long, being groomed and elegant, with dark hair and probably dark eyes. P45 remembered [redacted name] as authoritative figure involved in torturing patients. He identified [redacted name], Alaa M., and [redacted name] from a picture, which had already been published in the media. The witness remembered tha [redacted name] had authority in the hospital and people were cautious when they spoke to him. P45 thought he remembered him being a urologist but was not sure. [Redacted name] supported the regime. The witness recalled having seen the picture before, in the police questioning but maybe also in the media.

***

[60-minutes-break]

***

After the break, P45 amended his statement regarding how he saw Alaa M. wearing a military uniform. He remembered seeing Alaa M. once, coming from a room outside the main hospital building where doctors rested, ate or showered. He remembered Alaa M. wearing military pants and a white undershirt. Therefore, the witness explained, he did not see a badge. He did not remember the shoes that Alaa M. wore. Judge Rhode asked whether this was the situation in which P45 witnessed the argument between Alaa M. and the soldier. P45 denied this. The Judge then asked if this meant that he saw Alaa M. wearing military clothes twice. P45 affirmed.

Next, the surgery department of Homs Military Hospital was discussed. P45 was shown a drawing of the department made by Alaa M. during an earlier hearing.

P45 remembered the surgery department to look like the drawing, except two rooms for doctors being on the opposite hallway. However, he remembered that in the second half of 2011, the corridor was closed off to civilian personnel, and patients were detained and tortured there. He recalled that the room for the doctors had been moved to a different building because civil doctors did not have access to the surgery department anymore. Upon Judge Rhode’s question, the witness stated that this change happened within a few days, in the second half of 2011. P45 did not remember for how long after that it had been used as a prison.

The witness told the Judges that there was a video of the surgery department being used as a prison. Judge Koller replied that this video is exactly what they wanted to discuss with the witness. The video was shown to the witness and projected via screens to the public audience. It depicted naked patients chained to beds, partially covered with blankets but with visible marks on their chests. The witness begged the Judges to stop the video. He said that he knew the video. The Judges wanted to discuss one still image from the video. Judge Rhode’s laptop shut down and he was not able to transmit the video. As the witness was visibly affected, Judge Koller suggested he take a break while the Court resolved its technical issues.

Afterward, Judge Rhode showed P45 four seconds of the video. This part of the video showed a side table with two items on top of it. Judge Rhode asked P45 to describe these items. The witness said that both items were electric cables.  He told the Judges that the cables were tied around the detainee’s toes, connected to power and then, the torturers poured water over the detainees.

P45 described that he did not see people being tortured with these electric cables. However, he heard screams coming from the surgery department, mostly around 8 pm. He also saw the marks on peoples’ bodies, because they were naked and only partially covered with blankets. The witness described that in one part of the video, you could see a detainee whose right hand had been amputated. He also described how the detainees were chained to beds with rusty chains. He drew the Judges’ attention to the urine bags which can be seen in the video, and which were full of urine. He explained that they should be empty so the urine can flow out of the body but that they were intentionally kept full to cause the detainees terrible pain. Moreover, he explained that the urine was very dark and thick. This meant that the detainees were not given enough water and they had tissue damage, causing kidney failure. He said that people were blindfolded. Because the detainees could not move, they developed ulcers on their backs. P45 described that the detainees had to suffer for many days and were treated inhumanely. P45 told the Judges that when a soldier died, regime supporters blamed the detainees and tortured them in revenge.

***

[15-minutes-break]

***

Judge Rhode asked whether the witness had ever seen a quarrel between Alaa M. and another doctor or nurse. The witness denied. A photo was shown to the witness and projected via screens to the public audience. [Note: it was a picture of [redacted name], taken from an online interview.] In response, the witness said that he knew the person in the photo was a doctor from Homs Military Hospital but that he did not remember a quarrel between him and Alaa M. He remembered that the person from the photo was not involved in torturing patients. The witness did not remember the person’s name. Judge Rhode explained that this was [redacted name]. The witness replied that he had heard that name but could not remember if it was the person in this photo. Judge Rhode asked what confession the person in the photo had. The witness said he did not know, but if his name was [redacted name], he assumed that he was not a Christian. Judge Rhode wanted to know whether there were Sunni doctors in the hospital who were very strict about religious practices, for example following the rules on Ramadan. P45 replied that he did not know.

***

[5-minutes-break]

***

The Defense was asked to present its questions to the witness. To protect the witness’ identity, Judge Koller proposed the following procedure. The Defense Counsel could ask their questions. Judge Koller would then consider whether the question would risk revealing the witness’ identity. Only if he deemed the question safe to be answered, would the Arabic interpreter translate it for the witness.

To begin with, Defense Counsel Al-Agi asked the witness whether the list he had been talking about during the last days was a written or mental list and when he had started it. The witness replied that it was a written list, but he did not have it with him in Germany. He started the list when the torturing of patients began, around the middle of 2011. If he did not know the name of someone who was torturing people, he asked around for the name and put it on the list. Then, Al-Agi asked whether the witness had been in touch with CIJA. The witness said that he did not know what that was.

Then, Defense Counsel Bonn presented his questions. Most questions were not allowed as they risked revealing the witness's identity. However, the Court allowed a question about the burning incident with the boy. Bonn asked P45 whether he had seen actual fire or just the glow of a fire. The witness said that he had seen a part of the fire, on Alaa M.’s right side. Bonn asked who the witness had talked to about the incident. The witness clarified that he had told his family, the journalist in 2011 and the BKA. Bonn was also allowed to ask about the field hospital that the witness helped with. The witness clarified that it was just a room, operated by an elderly man, where they helped everyone, soldiers and civilians.

In the remaining time, Judge Rhode asked the witness what he knew about corpses being stored in the hospital. The witness testified that he did not see them but heard that a huge number of corpses were in Homs, not only in the hospital but throughout the city. He mentioned that families either did not know what happened to their relatives or were only allowed to collect corpses if they signed documents stating the person had died of natural causes—even if the person was missing a head. Sometimes, the families had to pay money to the authorities to collect the corpses of their family members.

At the end of the second longest session in the Frankfurt trial, the witness was dismissed. In total, P45 had been questioned for two and a half trial days, all in one week.

The proceedings were adjourned at 5:25 PM.

The next trial day will be on July 23, 2024, at 10:00 AM.

___________________________

For more information or to provide feedback, please contact SJAC at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to SJAC’s newsletter for updates on our work