Inside the Alaa M. Trial #90: Faking a Document? A Piece of Cake.
Higher Regional Court – Frankfurt, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #90
Hearing Date: December 3 & 5, 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 90th trial monitoring report details days 160 and 161 of the trial of Alaa M. in Frankfurt, Germany. On the first trial day, Alaa M. read a statement correcting his testimony from the previous session. The Court then heard further testimony from P4, seeking to clarify the periods of his imprisonment in Syria. They confronted P4 with allegedly official documents from Syria, submitted by the Defense, which indicated that P4 had been imprisoned earlier than he testified in court. P4 challenged the authenticity of these documents. When asked about [redacted name], P4 exercised his right to refuse testimony because of the risk of being subjected to prosecution himself.
On the second trial day, the Court questioned Dr. Patrick Kroker from the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) about information he had received from Anwar Al-Bunni and forwarded to the German authorities. The Judges further discussed two German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) reports, one about the communication between P4 and [redacted name] and another one about the relationship between [redacted name] [P37] and the Accused.
Day 160 – December 3, 2024
In the beginning of the first session this week, Judges Koller and Rhode informed the parties that they were currently assessing evidence on a flash drive that they had obtained by mutual legal assistance. [Note: it was not apparent to the trial monitor where the flash drive came from and what its information might relate to.] Another flash drive had been submitted by the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), containing chats between P52 and [redacted name], which interpreter Mr. Farrag was asked to translate over the Christmas break.
Judge Koller also read out the Court’s decision to deny the Accused’s application to take evidence by contacting the Lebanese and Iraqi government to verify whether P4 had been driving a truck in these countries because the application did not point to a precisely designated piece of evidence [Section 244 (3) German Code of Criminal Procedure].
Alaa M. then read a statement correcting his testimony from the previous trial day. He clarified that his comment about wanting to "defile" the bodies of Al-Basha did not pertain to ISIS but rather to violent protesters. He further explained that when he referred to "donkey and pig people," he was indeed referring to ISIS. Lastly, he affirmed that the phrase "council of lice" was directed at the Security Council and its resolution imposing sanctions on the Syrian regime. [Note: For more details on the Accused’s testimony, see Trial Report #89.]
The Court then heard testimony from P4 again, around two and a half years after his first appearance. [Note: For more information on P4’s first testimony, see Trial Reports #16, #17, #18, #19, and #20.] P4 was assisted by interpreter Mr. Farrag and his counsel Mr. Bessler. Asked about his occupation, P4 noted that he worked as a truck driver in Syria. There was a discussion about P4’s current occupation, which Judge Koller at one point described as performing “odd jobs.” Judge Rhode then questioned P4 about his imprisonment in Syria. Through a series of questions, Judge Rhode established that P4 had been imprisoned during the Syrian “revolution” from late 2011 until March or April 2013, and earlier in 2006 for six to nine months due to conscientious objection from military service. Judge Rhode inquired whether P4 had been detained between these two periods, which P4 repeatedly denied.
Judge Rhode also asked whether P4 had ever provided his fingerprints to the authorities to validate a document. P4 responded that during his imprisonment, he had been forced to give his fingerprints countless times on blank pieces of paper, which the guards later filled out as they wished. He denied ever giving his fingerprints in front of a court or judge. P4 emphasized that he also did not provide his fingerprints to anyone to facilitate his release from prison. Instead, he explained that his release was secured because his father contacted members of the Assad “gang” and paid money for his freedom.
The Judges proceeded to display four documents, which were projected onto the screens in the courtroom and the public gallery. All the documents were written in Arabic, were allegedly issued by the Syrian authorities, and stated that P4 had been imprisoned since May 4, 2009. Upon reading them, P4 sneered and declared that these documents did not pertain to him. He exclaimed that anyone could obtain such false documents from the Syrian authorities and that he himself could easily acquire similar documents with Mr. Farrag’s name on them. P4 further pointed out discrepancies in the documents, noting that while all of them listed the same alleged first day of his imprisonment, they showed different end dates for his detention and listed varying crimes he was accused of. [Note: The authenticity of the documents has already been questioned by the late linguistic expert Mr. Farrag, see Trial Reports #60 and #61.]
Judge Rhode referred to one document in which a fingerprint was visible, and Sergeant [redacted name] verified it as belonging to P4. P4 retorted that this Sergeant could verify it all he wanted, but the document still did not pertain to him. Judge Rhode then inquired about another document, which was signed by Brigadier General [redacted name]. P4 responded that he had heard of [redacted name], as he was an important figure in the prison, but insisted that they had never met in person.
Shifting to a different topic, Judge Rhode asked P4 about his occupation as a truck driver in Syria, which involved delivering goods to Lebanon and Iraq. The Judge sought to understand what procedures P4 had to follow to cross the border and what documents he needed to submit. P4 explained that crossing the Syrian side of the border was simple before the war; one could easily pay a border guard to pass through. However, as the conflict began to escalate, it became necessary to submit an ID or passport along with 1,000 pounds. P4 was unaware of what happened to the documents or whether the guards recorded the names of those crossing the border, as the process occurred in a closed-off room that he was never allowed to enter.
On the Lebanese side of the border, P4’s employer always worked with a private agency that handled all the necessary arrangements. P4 recalled handing over his ID or passport, an entry ticket, and the freight list for his truck to the agent. He did not know what happened to the documents afterward, as the agency managed everything. At this point, P4 addressed Judge Koller, requesting a short break because he had difficulty speaking for extended periods following a recent surgery.
***
[20-minutes-break]
***
After the break, Judge Rhode displayed a document on the screen showing a list of P4’s exits from and re-entries into Syria from Lebanon in 2003 and 2004. The list was issued by the Syrian Office for Migration. Judge Rhode asked P4 if the recorded dates from 2003 and 2004 were accurate, which P4 confirmed. The Judge then questioned why there were no records after 2004, despite P4’s claim that he continued crossing the border to Lebanon as a truck driver. P4 responded that only the Migration Office could provide an explanation for the missing records. He stated he had no idea why no dates were listed after 2004 but emphasized that he was certain he had continued crossing the border after that time.
The conversation then shifted to P4’s claim that he had been threatened. In this context, Judge Rhode displayed a WhatsApp message in Arabic, sent from a German phone number. He asked P4 if he knew who had sent the message and whether it was related to the trial against Alaa M. P4 responded that he did not know the sender and was unsure if the message was connected to the trial. Judge Rhode then asked about money transfers P4 had received from [redacted location]. P4 explained that his brother had sent him money from [redacted location] through other people’s accounts but denied receiving money from anyone else. When Judge Rhode mentioned the name [redacted name], P4’s Counsel, Mr. Bessler, intervened and requested a break to confer with his client.
***
[5-minutes-break]
***
Counsel Bessler explained that answering questions about [redacted name] or their relation would subject his client to the risk of prosecution, which is why P4 were to exercise his right to refuse to give information, enshrined in Section 55 (1) German Code of Criminal Procedure. Judge Koller replied that the Judges had anticipated this but needed to discuss how to proceed.
***
[5-minutes-break]
***
Upon return, the Judges had no further questions for the witness. Defense Counsel Bonn asked P4 what Counsel Bessler had told him about the reason for his re-summoning. After some hesitation, P4 explained that Counsel Bessler had only mentioned there were new questions that had not been asked during P4’s initial testimony in 2022. P4 denied that Counsel Bessler had informed him that the Court would present documents detailing the dates of his detention.
Defense Counsel Al-Agi then inquired whether P4 had ever hired a lawyer in Syria, which P4 denied. Al-Agi also asked if P4 knew [redacted name] and [redacted name], to which P4 replied that they were his brother and paternal cousin, respectively.
No one else had questions for P4. Judge Koller thanked and dismissed him.
The proceedings were adjourned at 12:40PM.
The next trial day will be on December 5, 2024, at 10:00AM.
Day 161 – December 5, 2024
On the second trial day, the Court heard Dr. Patrick Kroker from the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR). At the beginning of the session, Dr. Kroker explained that the ECCHR is a Berlin-based NGO dedicated to upholding human rights through strategic litigation. He stated that the organization is primarily financed by donations from European and U.S.-based foundations, with no government funding. When asked about the ECCHR’s collaboration with other NGOs, Dr. Kroker described it as part of a broad network of civil society actors, emphasizing that the scope and partners involved in such collaborations vary on a case-by-case basis. In response to questions from Judge Koller, Dr. Kroker also confirmed that he had worked with Anwar Al-Bunni on several Syria-related investigations.
Judge Koller informed Dr. Kroker that he was summoned because he had provided authorities with information regarding the allegations against Alaa M. On May 17, 2020, Dr. Kroker sent an email to the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) and the Federal Prosecutor General's Office (GBA). In the email, he included a link to a Middle East Monitor article detailing accusations against Alaa M. and informed the BKA and GBA that he had knowledge of two individuals who could provide information about the crime scene and perpetrator. In a second email, dated May 19, 2020, Dr. Kroker informed BKA chief investigator Deußing that the two witnesses were P8 and P11, the brother and cousin of a man who was tortured and killed in Homs Military Hospital. He also noted that these two witnesses had themselves been imprisoned and tortured in Homs.
Dr. Kroker testified that the two names had been provided to him by Al-Bunni but was unsure whether Al-Bunni had also sent him the link to the Middle East Monitor article, as the article had been shared by several sources within Dr. Kroker’s network. He emphasized that he could not recall the specifics of how Al-Bunni initially approached him with information about the Alaa M. case but clearly remembered the significance of the information provided. When Judge Koller asked why Al-Bunni shared this information with the ECCHR instead of directly forwarding it to the authorities, Dr. Kroker explained that he was confident Al-Bunni would contact the authorities himself now. However, at the time, Al-Bunni consistently shared information with the ECCHR first.
The Judges then inquired about Al-Bunni's methodology, cautiously suggesting that the way he conducted his questioning might have influenced the witnesses' statements. [Note: For more details on Al-Bunni’s testimony, see Trial Reports #53 and #64.] Dr. Kroker acknowledged that he had also criticized Al-Bunni's formal documentation process but firmly rejected the idea that Al-Bunni would influence the outcome of his interviews. The Judges further sought clarification on how the topic of military hospitals had been introduced into the conversation, given that the witnesses had stated they were detained in a prison operated by the Military Intelligence Service. However, Dr. Kroker could not recall how this had come up, as the conversation took place more than four and a half years ago.
***
[15-minutes-break]
***
After the break, the Defense Team posed several questions to Dr. Kroker. Defense Counsel Endres asked whether the ECCHR had ever paid Al-Bunni, which Dr. Kroker denied. Endres also inquired about Dr. Kroker’s interactions with various journalists. Dr. Kroker explained that while many journalists contacted him regarding Syrian cases, he did not discuss the case against Alaa M. with them. Defense Counsel Endres then asked whether the ECCHR had any "underground" or informal organizations in Syria working on its behalf. Dr. Kroker appeared visibly confused by the question and denied it. Defense Counsel Al-Agi asked whether Dr. Kroker still had records of his phone communications with Al-Bunni from that time, which he said he does not. Judge Koller thanked and dismissed the witness.
The Judges then displayed and read aloud excerpts from a WhatsApp conversation between [redacted name] and P4 from [redacted time]. The messages included requests from [redacted name] asking P4 to repay him 1,200€ that he owed. Other messages mentioned sums of 7,000€ and 20,000€. In the chat messages read aloud by Judge Rhode, P4 eventually began ignoring [redacted name] and stopped responding to him.
In relation to these circumstances, the Judges read out excerpts from a BKA report analyzing [redacted name]’s seized phone. According to the BKA’s assessment, the communication demonstrated that [redacted name] had [redacted information], which P4 failed to [redacted information]. Additionally, the BKA found evidence confirming the [redacted information] from [redacted name] to P4. The BKA also identified a suspicious number of [redacted information], including some [redacted information], suggesting that [redacted name] may have been involved in [redacted information]. Furthermore, the BKA discovered a picture of [redacted information], presumably [redacted information].
***
[15-minutes-break]
***
After the break, the Court announced that the transcript of P37’s police questioning would be introduced through the self-reading procedure. Judge Rhode then read aloud a brief excerpt from a BKA report regarding the relationship between P37 and the Accused. The report concluded that they knew each other in Syria, remained in contact after both arrived in Germany, but never discussed anything related to the charges against Alaa M.
Last, Judge Koller informed the Defense and the Accused that the Court would like to summon the Accused’s parents, wife and sister in February 2025. He wanted to know whether the Accused’s relatives would be willing to testify or if they would exercise their right to refuse testimony under Section 52 (1) German Code of Criminal Procedure. Defense Counsel Endres replied that he would evaluate this with his client and get back to the Court.
The proceedings were adjourned at 12:30PM.
The next trial day will be on December 10, 2024, at 10:00AM.