Inside the Alaa M. Trial #83: The Metal-Rods Incident

Higher Regional Court – Frankfurt, Germany

Trial Monitoring Summary #83

Hearing Date: September 10 & 12, 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 83nd trial monitoring report details days 149 and 150 of the trial of Alaa M. in Frankfurt, Germany. On the first trial day, a new witness appeared in Court. P49 worked with Alaa M. in Homs Military Hospital in 2011 and 2012. According to P49, he witnessed large quantities of dead bodies in the hospital, which were brought by the Intelligence Services or the Military from outside the hospital or from the detention facility. He recalled that the bodies were visible to everyone entering the main entrance, and their smell filled the entire hospital. The bodies were labeled, photographed and entered into a computer system to identify them at a later point. P49 testified that civilian patients suspected of opposing the regime were regularly beaten by military personnel, doctors, and nurses using various methods. He inferred that more severe torture took place in the hospital based on the frequent screams he heard, although he only personally witnessed the beatings.

P49 described an incident involving mistreatment by Alaa M. around 2011 or 2012. A patient with a fractured hand and metal rods protruding from the wound came to Homs Military Hospital. Alaa M. repeatedly asked P49 to remove the rods without anesthesia. P49 refused each time, worried about harming the patient, and Alaa M. eventually laughed and told him to leave the room. P49 did not witness the alleged burning of a male patient’s genitals but heard about it from two sources. One of the sources identified Alaa M. as the perpetrator.

On the second day this week, a Facebook chat between P49 and another witness, [redacted name], was discussed. In this chat, P49 had offered to testify about Alaa M.’s mistreatment which he witnessed in Homs Military Hospital and discussed the metal rods incident. P49 also informed the Court that [redacted name] was the one who had told him that Alaa M. burned a male patient’s genitals. Although P49 remembered in court that he had received this information from [redacted name] before the police questioning, during that questioning he stated that he only heard about the incident but could not provide a name. The discrepancy between P49’s in-court testimony and his police statement remained unresolved.

P49 clarified that he was transferred from the laboratory to the emergency department between August and November 2011, when the gynecology department was converted into the emergency department. Alaa M. claimed that the gynecology department was still in use when he left Homs Military Hospital in November 2011, arguing they could not have worked in the emergency department simultaneously.

Day 149 – September 10, 2024

In the first session this week, a new witness appeared before the Court. P49 is a [redacted information] assistant who worked at Homs Military Hospital from [redacted time] 2011 until [redacted time] 2012. He was accompanied by his lawyer, Dr. Mehring-Zier. Although he had a good command of German, he primarily relied on the Arabic interpreter, Mr. Farrag.

In the beginning, Judge Koller asked P49 to describe his personal and professional background. P49 explained that he was born and raised in [redacted location]. After completing high school in [redacted time], he trained as a [redacted information] assistant for two and a half years, finishing his training in mid [redacted time]. Shortly thereafter, on [redacted time], he began his obligatory military service in [redacted location]. His basic military training took place in [redacted location] over two months, during which, as he put it, he learned "nothing." Judge Koller, who was in a good mood, remarked that during his own obligatory military service, he also learned nothing, apart from driving a truck and drinking beer.

Afterward, P49 worked for four months in a laboratory at Tishreen Hospital. He then began working at Homs Military Hospital, still in a military capacity. After four months in the hospital's laboratory, he was transferred to the emergency department, according to the witness, without explanation. In [redacted time] or [redacted time] 2012, he [redacted information], hid in [redacted location] for some time, and later fled to Germany as a refugee. He cited two reasons for his [redacted information]: first, the killings he witnessed conflicted with his moral values, and second, his fear of “general” [redacted name], who was known to be close to Assad and who had threatened P49.

Judge Koller asked P49 to elaborate on [redacted name]’s threat. P49 explained that he had left Homs Military Hospital several times, without the necessary permission. Judge Koller inquired if this also had something to do with a second job that P49 had. P49 explained that while [redacted name] knew he had left the hospital without permission, [redacted name] was unaware that these absences were due to a second job at a private hospital near [redacted location]. On his days off from Homs Military Hospital, P49 took the bus to the other hospital. While working in the laboratory, this was possible, but after being transferred to the emergency department, he rarely had the opportunity to leave Homs. Judge Koller asked P49 to describe the specific incident when [redacted name] threatened him. P49 recalled that [redacted name] summoned him and a colleague, warning them that they either needed to work more disciplined or he would shoot them right there in the yard.

P49 was then asked to describe the conditions at Homs Military Hospital in the context of the civil war. He recalled seeing many civilian patients brought in by the Intelligence Services or military personnel. He could not remember if these patients were referred to by [redacted information] instead of [redacted information]. He also recounted that hundreds of dead bodies were delivered to the hospital, either from outside or from the detention facility on the hospital grounds and brought to the autopsy department by personnel wearing [redacted information]. He recalled that everyone working in the hospital could see the bodies when entering the main entrance of the hospital site. Everyone could also smell them throughout the whole hospital. When Judge Rhode asked P49 for an estimate of the number of dead bodies he saw in the summer of 2011, P49 responded that he could not recall the exact number from that period but noted that the majority of dead bodies arrived in 2012. He also mentioned seeing dead bodies at Tishreen Hospital, which he associated with the war, as the bodies were left lying on the ground.

***

[25-minutes-break]

***

Judge Rhode wanted to know what happened to the dead bodies. P49 explained that they were labeled, photographed, and their data entered into a computer. While he did not see the photographs himself, he knew of the process from seeing the photographer and hearing about it from a friend working in administration. P49’s friend worked with the computers, but P49 could not recall whether his role involved saving the photos, categorizing them, or performing a different task. The friend attempted to keep a copy of the photos, but this ultimately proved impossible. P49 emphasized that there were numerous questions that were strictly off-limits at Homs Military Hospital. Judge Rhode asked P49 about the purpose of saving photographs of the deceased. P49 explained that the photographs of the dead bodies were taken to allow their identification at a later time. This was necessary due to the large number of bodies arriving daily. Judge Rhode then referenced P49’s earlier police statement, where he had mentioned that the photos were used to inform relatives and maintain statistical records. P49 confirmed that this was consistent with his current explanation. He could not recall whether relatives were required to pay a fee to collect the bodies or if death certificates, attributing deaths to natural causes, were issued.

When asked about torture at Homs Military Hospital, P49 testified that civilian patients suspected of opposing the regime were routinely beaten by military personnel, doctors, and nurses, using their hands, military boots, and other objects, which he did not specify more concretely. He inferred that more severe torture occurred throughout the hospital, as he often heard screams, though he only witnessed the beatings. In one incident, in which “general” [redacted name] was present, P49 had to take a civilian patient to an examination room. When he was asked to leave and closed the door, he heard the patient’s scream. P49 observed that civilian patients were transported to the hospital by either military or civilian vehicles, which might have been associated with the Intelligence Services. They arrived in wheelchairs or on stretchers, with visible injuries such as gunshot wounds or burns. Some appeared to have been captured in opposition-controlled areas and seemed to have already received some medical treatment but were abandoned when the military conducted raids.

***

[60-minutes-break]

***

After the lunch break, Judge Rhode asked P49 if he remembered which military units brought the civilian patients. P49 recalled that they belonged to the [redacted information], [redacted information] and the [redacted information]. Civilian patients frequently did not receive adequate care and were often left untreated in the emergency department. After being taken to the examination rooms, P49 did not observe any visible signs of torture on the patients, as he did not see them again once they were transferred from the emergency department to other areas of the hospital. P49 admitted being too afraid to speak out about the mistreatment, though he did intervene in one instance. In that case, P49 stopped someone, though he could not recall if it was a soldier or nurse, from hitting a patient by saying they needed the patient alive for questioning. This, he explained, was the only way he could protect the patient without openly siding with him. P49 suggested that some doctors might have wanted to demonstrate their commitment to the Assad-regime by mistreating the oppositional patients.

***

[10-minutes-break]

***

Later in the session, P49 was questioned about the Accused. He stated that he witnessed only one incident involving mistreatment by Alaa M. In this instance, which occurred in 2011 or 2012, a patient arrived with a fractured hand and metal rods protruding from the wound. P49 called the orthopedic surgeon, “Dr. Alaa.” It was unclear whether he knew the Accused’s last name at the time or learned it later. However, he identified the Accused in the courtroom. P49 also recalled that Alaa M. was a civilian doctor. In an examination room in the emergency department, Alaa M. asked the witness three or four times to remove the metal rods without using anesthesia on the patient. P49 declined each time, insisting that it was not his responsibility. Although he did not express it, he was concerned that such actions might harm the patient. In the end, P49 recalled, Alaa M. laughed and told him to leave the room. P49 was not aware of what happened to the patient afterward. There was some debate among the parties to the proceedings regarding the timing of the incident, which could not be resolved, but P49 remained certain that it took place.

The discussion then turned to the alleged incident in which the Accused burned a male patient’s genitals. P49 said that he did not see the act himself but heard about it from two sources. One person claimed to have seen the incident but did not name the perpetrator. The second source, [redacted name], mentioned Alaa M. as the perpetrator. When questioned about his earlier police statement, in which he stated that [redacted name] had not mentioned any names, the witness explained that he was unsure when [redacted name] provided the name. P49 stated that he was given the name before the police questioning. However, when the Judges asked if he could definitively rule out the possibility that [redacted name] gave him the name afterward, he acknowledged that he could not refute this possibility.

P49 was not dismissed, and his testimony will continue on the second trial day this week.

The proceedings were adjourned at 3:40PM.

The next trial day will be on September 12, 2024, at 10:00AM.

Day 150 – September 12, 2024

In the second session this week, P49’s questioning continued. The first round of questioning focused on whether the witness had heard more rumors about Alaa M. mistreating patients beyond the metal rods incident. Initially, the witness was unsure how to respond. However, when Judge Koller read out the police questioning statement, the witness recalled that his colleague, [redacted name], a nurse, had told him that Alaa M. hit patients in their face, and on their hands, and arms, especially targeting injured body parts. P49 was not able to recall a specific incident in which his colleague might have mentioned this.

Judges Koller and Rhode then questioned P49 about his relationship with [redacted name], and how frequently they had been in contact. P49 clarified that he had mixed up the dates in the prior hearing. After the session on Tuesday, he reviewed his Facebook account and saw that [redacted name] and he had exchanged messages on [redacted time], 2020, and on [redacted time], 2020. According to P49, they did not communicate again after that.

Judge Koller then referred to the witness’ previous police questioning, in which he had mentioned hearing from two sources about a doctor burning a patient’s genital area, though no name was given at the time. However, in Court on Tuesday, P49 stated that [redacted name] had identified the perpetrator as Alaa M., either in Homs or later, but certainly before the police questioning. Judge Koller questioned why P49 had not mentioned Alaa M.’s name to the police, even though, according to his own statement, he must have known the name by then. Judge Rhode tried the same line of questioning at a later point. Nonetheless, this discrepancy remained unresolved. P49 was still able to access the Facebook chat and agreed to send screenshots of the communication via his lawyer to the Court.

The Judges then asked P49 to describe Alaa M. P49 remembered that Alaa M. was rumored to torture patients but stressed that he personally had only ever seen the incident with the metal rods. He mentioned that he and Alaa M. worked in the emergency department. Judge Rhode asked P49 about Alaa M.’s political orientation. P49 recalled that Alaa M. supported Assad. P49 explained that this was evident from Alaa M.'s general behavior, although he could not point to any specific incident that directly demonstrated this support. P49 did not recount the type of clothes that Alaa M. wore but he figured that all doctors were wearing white coats and [redacted information] scrubs. P49 remembered that some doctors were called to work in field hospitals but never heard that Alaa M. was one of them.

***

[30-minutes-break]

***

On his own initiative, the witness sought to clarify when he was transferred from the laboratory to the emergency department. He traced back the events to the month of Ramadan (August 2011) and Eid ul-Adha (around November 11, 2011), noting that he had been able to go home for some days during Ramadan and for Eid, which indicated that he was still working in the laboratory at that time. He recalled that the gynecology department had been converted into an emergency department, and he was subsequently called to work there. Judge Rhode asked whether the transfer was a disciplinary action, as the witness had previously stated in the police questioning. Today, the witness denied this, suggesting instead that the laboratory may have required full-time staff, and his previous schedule had allowed for two-week breaks.

Judge Koller asked P49 whether Alaa M. had been working in the emergency department the whole time P49 was there. P49 explained that there were three orthopedists, Alaa M., [redacted name], and [redacted name]. P49 recounted that the Accused had been called upon a lot but noted that due to fluctuating work schedules, he would not have noticed if Alaa M. had been absent for a month.

Judge Rhode continued asking P49 what he knew about a detention facility. P49 was able to describe the location of the detention facility but denied ever having entered it. He remembered one incident in which a detainee had been brought to the emergency department, had been treated, and then returned to the detention facility. He figured that patient had been a soldier. Judge Rhode asked whether P49 had noticed any signs of mistreatment on this patient, which P49 denied. Judge Rhode confronted P49 with his statement from the police questioning that there were torture chambers in Homs Military Hospital. P49 did not recall using this exact wording but explained that this sounds plausible to him and that “general” [redacted name] would have certainly tortured people.

The conversation then focused on “general” [redacted name]. P49 described that [redacted name] oversaw the entire emergency department, and possibly even the detention area. He recalled that [redacted name] had more authority than military personnel of higher rank. P49 remembered that [redacted name] was always wearing a military radio and a phone and suggested that he was talking to military personnel outside the hospital. P49 was asked to clarify where the incident took place in which [redacted name] had threatened P49 and his colleague. P49 described that this took place outside, in front of a military storage unit. Judge Rhode reminded him that in the police questioning, P49 had said this took place in [redacted name]’s office. P49 explained that [redacted name] might have had an office close to the storage unit.

Next, the witness was asked to identify three individuals from a photo array that had been shown in the media and in Court several times. He recognized Alaa M. and [redacted name], another orthopedic surgeon. The third person looked familiar, but the witness could not recall his name. When presented with the name [redacted name], the witness said it was possible that this was the man in the picture. He mentioned rumors that orthopedic surgeons amputated limbs without medical necessity when patients were sent to the operating room.

***

[60-minutes-break]

***

After the lunch break, Judge Koller confirmed that he received the screenshots of the chat between P49 and [redacted name]. He noted that the conversation also included voice messages which also needed to be transferred to the Court. Judge Koller suggested that the witness provide his login information to the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), but the witness was uncomfortable with this. Prosecutor Schlepp proposed that the witness send a video with an audio track of the voice messages through his lawyer to the Court, with interpreter Mr. Farrag translating. All parties agreed to this approach. Judge Koller informed the witness that he might be summoned again if new questions regarding his chat with [redacted name] were to arise, though he added that this seemed unlikely.

Judge Koller then asked P49 to summarize his memories of the conversation with [redacted name]. P49 recalled that there had been a Facebook post by [redacted name] on [redacted time], 2020, in which [redacted name] discussed the allegations against Alaa M. P49 commented on that post, stating that he had witnessed Alaa M.’s “racism and torture” and was willing to testify. [Redacted name] added him as a friend on Facebook and messaged him on [redacted time], 2020, to inquire about what P49 knew regarding Alaa M. In Court, P49 joked that [redacted name] did not seem to remember him, though he himself was sure he remembered [redacted name] from Homs Military Hospital. In their [redacted time] 2020 chat, P49 informed [redacted name] about the metal rods incident. P49 also mentioned hearing about operations being performed without anesthesia, though not specifically in connection with Alaa M. On [redacted time], 2020, the witness messaged [redacted name], saying that he had received a summons to be questioned by the police and asked if [redacted name] had provided his name to the authorities. [redacted name] replied, advising him to attend the questioning and tell the truth.

P49 was questioned about [redacted name]’s religious practices and political views, to which the witness replied that there was no space in the hospital to express such matters. He was also confronted with his asylum case, in which he had claimed to have seen war-related deaths but had not identified any perpetrators. He admitted that he withheld names to avoid complications with the asylum agency. The witness was then shown a satellite image of Homs Military Hospital, and he eagerly identified various departments and areas within the hospital.

After the Judges finished their questioning, only the Defense had questions for P49. Defense Counsel Bonn asked if the witness remembered how he spent Christmas and New Year’s Eve, in an attempt to help the witness recall whether the metal rods incident occurred before or after these holidays. P49 responded by asking Bonn how much he knew about Islam, and explained that, as a Muslim, these holidays were not significant for him and did not evoke any specific memories. Defense Counsel Al-Agi asked if the witness knew the name [redacted name]. The witness denied. It later became clear that Alaa M. had provided this name to Al-Agi to demonstrate that, during his time in the emergency department, [redacted name] had been responsible for the emergency department, in contrast to when P49 worked there, and [redacted name] was in charge. Defense Counsel Endres requested a more detailed description of the metal rods. The witness described them as very thin and protruding from the patient’s skin. When Endres attempted to make a medical assessment about removing the rods, Judge Koller stopped him. The witness was dismissed but may be recalled if questions about his Facebook chat with [redacted name] remain.

At last, Alaa M. spoke for nearly half an hour. He sought to clarify two main points. First, Alaa M. addressed the emergency department where P49 worked. M. recalled that P49 testified that he worked in a newly opened second emergency department, which had been converted from the gynecology department. Alaa M. claimed that when he left Homs Military Hospital in November 2011, the gynecology department still existed, meaning he never worked with the witness. Second, M. claimed that he did not recall the metal rods incident but suggested that, based on the witness’ description, the rods were likely Kirschner wires. He explained that if the rods were protruding from the skin “epicutaneous”, [German: “epikutan”], they could be removed painlessly, while rods beneath the skin “subcutaneous”, [German: “subkutan”] would require surgery and anesthesia. Because P49 described seeing the metal rods, M. concluded, they must have been placed epicutaneous and, hence, removing them would have been painless.

The proceedings were adjourned at 4:30PM.

The next trial day will be on September 17, 2024, at 10:00AM.

___________________________

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