Inside the Alaa M. Trial #84: Hear-say of Hear-say of Hear-say

Higher Regional Court – Frankfurt, Germany

Trial Monitoring Summary #84

Hearing Date: September 24 & 26, 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 84th trial monitoring report details days 151 and 152 of the trial of Alaa M. in Frankfurt, Germany. On the first trial day, Mr. Deußing, Head of Investigations at the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), appeared again. He testified about his recollections of the police questioning of P45, noting that he vividly remembered P45’s emotional testimony regarding the mistreatment of patients, particularly when P45 described the incident in which Alaa M. allegedly burned a boy’s genital area. Mr. Deußing was asked to resolve a discrepancy that arose during P45's testimony. The Judges wanted to know whether Mr. Deußing could clarify if P45 remembered that Alaa M. used [redacted information] or whether he inferred from [redacted information]. Mr. Deußing could not provide an answer to that. Mr. Deußing also remembered that P45 stated that Alaa M. often visited the emergency department with the sole intention of mistreating patients and always acted as part of a tightly knit group. Additionally, Mr. Deußing summarized the police questioning of P4 and discussed a report based on information provided by the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA).

On the second day this week, Birthe Schümann, an investigator from the Regional Criminal Police Office (LKA), provided testimony. Ms. Schümann emphasized that P49 made carefully differentiated statements, distinguishing between what he personally witnessed and hearsay. Ms. Schümann only recalled specific details after Judge Rhode read from the police transcript. She explained that she had expected to discuss P49's character and reliability, which she found trustworthy, rather than the content of his statement. Upon a question posed by Defense Counsel Bonn, Judge Koller confirmed that [redacted information] will be called to testify again.

Day 151 – September 24, 2024

In the first session this week, Mr. Deußing, Head of Investigations at the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) testified before the Court again. In the beginning of the session, Mr. Deußing was asked to summarize his memories of the police questioning of P45. [Note: For more details on P45’s testimony before the Court, please see TR #80.] The police questioning took place on [redacted time], in [redacted location]. Mr. Deußing emphasized that he clearly remembered P45’s questioning because of his immense security concerns and the resultant decision of the Prosecutor to grant the witness anonymity in the proceedings. Parts of the police questioning transcript had to be summarized to not reveal the witness’ identity. Mr. Deußing explained that the questioning took place on two days, from the morning until the evening. Next to scheduled breaks, the police questioning had to be paused several times due to the consternation of the witness.

Regarding P45’s testimony, Mr. Deußing remembered many details. He only asked the Judges to remind him of the wording in the police questioning transcripts for incidents in which he did not want to make a statement that might lead to the revelation of the witness’ identity. Mr. Deußing spoke about P45’s description of the general mistreatment of civilian patients in the hospital and the huge number of dead bodies that were dumped next to the detention facility and were treated like “garbage”, as P45 said in his police questioning. Mr. Deußing was asked about some other incidents relating to Homs Military Hospital and Alaa M. His answers to these questions largely aligned with P45’s testimony in court.

Mr. Deußing also repeated what P45 stated about the incident in which P45 saw Alaa M. burn the genital area of a boy. Mr. Deußing drew the Court’s attention to the fact that P45 “wept bitterly” when describing that incident and evaded questions because it was too painful for him to answer them. It became clear that P45 had described the incident in the police questioning very similarly to how it was recounted during the Court hearing. However, Judge Rhode inquired about P45's statement that Alaa M. used [redacted information] to set the genital area on fire. He asked Mr. Deußing whether he could remember if this detail was based on P45's memory or whether P45 came to this conclusion because [redacted information]. Mr. Deußing explained that he had asked P45 how he remembered the situation but was unable to confirm whether the statement was actually based on P45’s memory. Via the courtroom projector, Judge Rhode portrayed a sketch of this incident to the screens. Mr. Deußing confirmed that P45 drew the sketch, with P45 adding comments in Arabic and the interpreter adding those in German.

Mr. Deußing was able to comment on P45’s description of the Accused’s temper and general behavior. He pointed out that P45 described Alaa M. to be aggressive. He also reiterated that P45 stated that Alaa M. sometimes visited the emergency department with the sole purpose of mistreating patients. [Note: This was additional information. P45 had not stated this during his testimony before the Court.] In P45's police statement, he noted that the Accused never acted alone and was always accompanied by two individuals, whom P45 perceived as a tightly knit group. Judge Rhode asked Mr. Deußing to clarify another discrepancy. According to the police questioning transcript, P45 distinguished between a urinary catheter and a tourniquet. However, in court, P45 mentioned that he might have used the term tourniquet to describe the urinary catheter, as the latter can also serve that purpose. Mr. Deußing replied that he did not recall it differently from what was recorded in the police questioning transcript.

***

[30-minutes-break]  

***

After the break, Mr. Deußing was asked to summarize the police questioning with P4, the second survivor-witness in the trial. [Redacted information]. Mr. Deußing briefly summarized that P4 was questioned in [redacted location] to gather information about P47, [redacted name], P4’s nephew, who was later also questioned in court. [Redacted information]. Mr. Deußing recalled that P4 described how he and P47 were detained in Homs Central Prison to pressure P47’s father. In his police questioning, P4 [redacted information].

Lastly, Mr. Deußing was asked to summarize a report he had written on the statements of individuals who experienced or witnessed torture at Homs Military Hospital. The original transcripts of these statements had been provided in Arabic by the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA). One of these statements included a description of the burning incident, naming Alaa M. as the perpetrator. However, Mr. Deußing noted that the individual who provided this statement had only heard about the incident and had not witnessed it firsthand. The other statements detailed acts of torture at Homs Military Hospital, including beatings and surgeries performed without anesthesia, but did not mention the Accused.

The other parties did not ask Mr. Deußing any questions. Judge Koller acknowledged the impressive extent of his memory, thanking him before dismissing the witness. Mr. Deußing is scheduled to appear as a witness again on October 10, 2024.

The proceedings were adjourned at 12:30PM.

The next trial day will be on September 26, 2024, at 10:00AM.

 Day 152 – September 26, 2024

In the second session this week, Birthe Schümann, a Regional Criminal Police Office (LKA) investigator, was heard. The officer had conducted the police questioning of P49 in [redacted time] 2020. [Note: For more details on P49’s testimony in court, please see TR #83.] She informed the Court that she had prepared for the hearing by reviewing the original police questioning transcript. While she did not recall the details of P49’s statement, she had a vivid memory of the witness himself. At Judge Koller’s request to elaborate, Ms. Schümann described that P49 had been fearful about giving a statement due to concerns for family members who remained in Syria. Despite this, he was eager to share his experiences at Homs Military Hospital and was reluctant to take breaks during the questioning. She highlighted that P49 made carefully differentiated statements, clearly separating incidents he personally witnessed from hearsay.

When asked to describe the procedure of the police questioning, Ms. Schümann explained that it was conducted in Arabic with the help of an interpreter. After the end of the questioning, P49 was shown a transcript, on which he made minor remarks, again with the interpreter’s assistance. These changes were incorporated into the final transcript, which P49 signed. Ms. Schümann also recalled showing P49 photographs of several men, asking if he recognized any of them. P49 unequivocally identified one man as Alaa M., whom he had worked with at Homs Military Hospital.

Judge Koller then asked Ms. Schümann to detail the content of the police questioning. She reiterated that while she initially did not remember much, reviewing the transcript had refreshed her memory. She recounted that P49 had worked at Homs Military Hospital between 2011 and 2012 as a [redacted information], later assuming a [redacted information] role, possibly as a punishment for traveling frequently to Damascus. She also revisited the incident in which P49 stated that Alaa M. had asked him to remove metal rods from a patient's wound. She recalled that P49 said he refused, as this would have caused the patient additional pain without anesthesia. Ms. Schümann acknowledged that she should have sought more detail on this incident. She further explained that while P49 mentioned hearing rumors of Alaa M.’s involvement in acts of torture, he explicitly stated that he had not personally witnessed any other such incidents.

Judge Rhode then posed several questions about specific details of P49’s statement, which Ms. Schümann only recalled after Judge Rhode read the relevant sections of the police transcript. She admitted that she had not prepared to discuss the content of the questioning but had expected to be questioned about P49’s character and reliability, which she found to be trustworthy.

***   

[10-minutes-break]  

***

After the break, the parties were given the opportunity to question the witness. Only the Defense took advantage of this. Defense Counsel Endres questioned Ms. Schümann about the time and location where P49 met and worked with Alaa M., but she was unable to provide answers. He also asked her to specify the changes P49 made to the police interview transcript, but she could not recall.

Defense Counsel Al-Agi then inquired whether the witness spoke Arabic or German during the police questioning, implying that P49 was impatient with the Arabic translation during the Court’s hearing. Ms. Schümann responded that her questions were translated into Arabic, and P49’s answers were provided in Arabic and then translated to German by the interpreter. She noted that P49 already had a good command of German in 2020 and expected that he had improved significantly since then. She remarked that P49 appeared to be eager to learn German and integrate into German society.

Judge Koller thanked and dismissed the witness. Defense Counsel Bonn asked whether the Court intended to summon [redacted information] again, which Judge Koller confirmed. [Redacted information].

The proceedings were adjourned at 11:30AM.

The next trial day will be on October 1, 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