Inside the Alaa M. Trial #92: Re-Traumatization
Higher Regional Court – Frankfurt, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #92
Hearing Date: December 17, 19 & 20, 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 92nd trial monitoring report details days 164, 165 and 166 of the trial of Alaa M. in Frankfurt, Germany. On the first trial day, the Judges continued questioning P54. P54 appeared to be unfocused, taking several long pauses and evading the questions. He could not recall specific actions, and often even contradicted himself. In the beginning, Judge Koller expressed sympathy with the traumatized witness and acknowledged that the questioning might lead to re-traumatization. Eventually, he raised his voice, accusing P54 of trying to lead the Judges by the nose.
On the second trial day, the Court questioned Mr. Heiko Springmann, a criminal investigator from the German Regional Criminal Police Office (LKA) about the police questioning with P52. Mr. Springmann’s testimony strongly aligned with P52’s.
On the third trial day, the Court heard a linguistic expert for the [redacted information] language. She presented a translation of P15’s police questioning with the [redacted information] authorities.
Day 164 – December 17, 2024
In the beginning of the first session this week, Judge Koller informed the parties about a discussion that took place on December 12, 2024, between the Judges and representatives of the Federal Prosecutor General's Office (GBA), Dr. Zabeck and Ms. Schlepp. The conversation focused on whether to re-summon witnesses due to changed circumstances in Syria. The Prosecution expressed concerns that, despite recent developments, the threat to witnesses had not entirely subsided. This was particularly true for P45, who was under witness protection. The Prosecution remained apprehensive about potential risks to P45 if his identity were exposed. Since P45 was unable to provide complete testimony about the alleged punch on broken bones, the Prosecutor considered terminating that offence in accordance with Section 154 (2) German Code of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, Judge Koller decided that P45 would not be re-summoned.
Judge Koller then announced more trial days until the summer break, expressing hope that they would not need all of them. The dates are already published on the Court’s website. Psychiatrist Prof. Berger is scheduled to testify on February 11, 2025. He is tasked with evaluating whether the Accused poses a danger to the public and should be placed in preventive detention under Section 66 of the German Criminal Code after completing his sentence. The Defense Team finally affirmed that the Accused’s relatives would exercise their right to refuse testimony under Section 52 German Code of Criminal Procedure, which is why the Court will not summon them.
P54’s testimony then continued. [Note: P54’s testimony had started the week prior. For more details see Trial Report #91.] On this trial day, he was assisted by interpreter Ms. Shebib and his lawyer, Dr. Mehring-Zier. Judge Koller asked P54 if anything threatening had occurred to him or his family since his testimony in court the previous week, to which P54 replied that nothing had happened. Judge Koller expressed relief and explained that the Court aimed to address discrepancies between P54’s police statement and his testimony in Court. He assured P54 that he should not testify about anything he could not recall but suggested that P54 might remember more than he had shared with the Judges last week. In response, P54 explained that during his police questioning four years earlier, he had been able to remember more details about his time in Syrian hospitals. However, since then, he had faced several family problems, which had clouded his memory.
Continuing the questioning, Judge Koller wanted to know more about Alaa M.’s use of curse words, which P54 had mentioned the previous week. P54 responded that Alaa M. used such language with his colleagues. Judge Koller clarified that he wanted to know how Alaa M. spoke about or to the patients. He then read an excerpt from P54’s police questioning transcript, which described Alaa M. insulting detained persons in the emergency department. After several long pauses, P54 began speaking in general terms about detained persons brought to the emergency department. Judge Koller posed a direct question, asking P54 whether he remembered Alaa M. insulting detainees. After a prolonged silence, P54 replied that he could not remember.
Subsequently, Judge Koller asked P54 whether he recalled seeing Alaa M. physically assault patients. P54 responded that he knew Alaa M. had beaten patients but could not remember the specifics of how it happened. Judge Koller acknowledged how difficult and uncomfortable it must be to discuss such matters in the presence of the Accused. P54 explained that his hesitation stemmed from the fact that many individuals were involved in the mistreatment of detainees, and he did not want to falsely incriminate Alaa M.
A lengthy discussion followed, during which Judges Koller and Rhode attempted to ask various questions to refresh P54’s memory and elicit a detailed account of an incident involving Alaa M.’s misconduct. P54 struggled to provide a clear recollection and only vaguely stated that Alaa M. might have beaten detainees with his [redacted information] or with [redacted information].
[5-minutes-break]
After a brief deliberation in the Judges' chamber, Judge Koller addressed P54 with a gentle tone. He acknowledged how challenging it must be to recall situations where P54, fearing for his own life, was unable to assist individuals in need of medical care. Judge Koller remarked that memory distortion can serve as a form of self-protection in such circumstances of helplessness. P54 agreed, stating that this was true in his case. Judge Koller emphasized that, based on his experience in other trials, victims deeply appreciate it when witnesses come forward, and that P54’s testimony could play a significant role in helping the victims find some form of peace.
Judge Koller asked P54 if other doctors had been involved in the mistreatment. P54 confirmed this but fell silent when asked to provide names. After some hesitation, he reluctantly named [redacted name]. Judge Koller expressed his frustration, questioning why P54 had been able to provide several names to the police but was now struggling to do so in court. He told P54 that he did not believe there was any threat to his family in Syria, because other things were going on there. P54 explained that, because he had difficulty recalling details during the previous session, he had tried to refresh his memory by watching an Al-Jazeera video about Alaa M. He added that he was now concerned that he could no longer distinguish between what he had seen in the video and what he remembered from his time at Al-Mazzeh.
After another series of questions, P54 stated that he was certain he remembered Alaa M. kicking patients who were lying on the floor. When asked about an incident involving the Accused and the disinfection of a wound, P54 replied that he could not recall it. Judge Koller expressed doubt, noting that the incident was particularly striking. Koller then read from the police questioning transcript, which stated that P54 had witnessed Alaa M. disinfecting a patient’s wound with iodine. When the patient asked for water because he was thirsty, Alaa M. allegedly told him to [redacted information] and poured iodine [redacted information]. P54 acknowledged that this must be true, as it was mentioned in his police statement, but said he cannot remember it now.
Judge Koller expressed his disbelief, and lawyer Dr. Mehring-Zier informed the Judges that P54 had post-traumatic stress disorder. Judge Koller responded that many witnesses had this condition and that he was aware the questioning could potentially lead to re-traumatization. However, he emphasized that the law required him to continue the questioning. He then read from the transcript again, where P54 had stated that Alaa M. poured the iodine not for medical reasons, but because he seemed to enjoy it. P54 confirmed this statement. Judge Koller asked if P54 remembered the incident now. P54 denied, explaining that his memory was still foggy.
Judge Rhode asked P54 if he had ever heard anything negative about Alaa M. P54 confirmed this, explaining that his roommate had told him Alaa M. was selfish, as he did not follow the order for using the operating rooms and verbally abused the patients. P54 knew his roommate's name but declined to reveal it, as he had not obtained permission to do so.
Judge Rhode then inquired about Alaa M.’s strong connections, which P54 had mentioned to the police. P54 responded that Alaa M. was well-connected because he had been able to transfer hospitals, moving from Homs to Damascus, which was generally not allowed unless the hospital had closed.
[25-minutes-break]
After the break, a satellite image of Al-Mazzeh Hospital was presented to P54. A camera focused on P54’s desk, where he examined the image, which was projected onto screens in the courtroom and the public gallery. P54 was asked if he recognized the area. He took an unusually long time to identify it but eventually managed to label the different buildings. He also indicated where he initially believed the dead bodies were placed while he was working at Al-Mazzeh Hospital. However, after arriving in Germany, P54 discussed the matter with his colleagues, and together they realized their mistake. They discovered that the bodies were actually taken to a different area, which P54 also marked on the image.
Additionally, P54 drew a sketch of the building where the detainees were kept. Judge Rhode asked P54 if Alaa M. had access to this building. P54 replied that he was not certain but assumed that Alaa M. did have access. P54 added that everyone in the hospital knew who had access to the detainees’ building. When further questioned about how he knew this, P54 fell silent. He then named another doctor, [redacted name], who had access. Judge Rhode remarked that P54 seemed to be evading questions about Alaa M. P54 responded that he was not evading the questions but was simply trying to navigate through his memories to recall how he knew that Alaa M. had access. P54 ultimately told the Judges that he had heard from friends and colleagues that they had seen Alaa M. enter the building.
In reaction to that statement, Judge Koller reprimanded P54 for taking ten minutes to answer Judge Rhode’s question. He warned the witness that the questioning could continue for days. Judge Koller told P54 that he believed he had post-traumatic stress disorder. However, he pointed out that, according to experts, traumatized individuals often remember traumatic events very clearly. He emphasized that he believed P54 knew more than he was disclosing. He reiterated that he did not believe there was still a threat to those who testify against Assad.
The conversation shifted back to the detainees’ building. Judge Koller referred to the police transcript, which mentioned that P54 had reported receiving phone calls from the detainees’ building requesting medical assistance. He asked P54 whether specific doctors were requested. P54 recalled one incident in which he had been called to change the urinary catheter of a patient, but the patient had not been brought to him. Judge Koller reprimanded P54, noting that he had already mentioned this story the previous week and that his answer did not address the current question. Judge Koller then asked follow-up questions, but P54's responses did not satisfy the Judge.
Following this, Judge Koller raised his voice and told the witness that he had enough. He accused P54 of trying to lead the Judges by the nose. After another row of questions, P54 suggested that specific doctors who were pro-Assad were requested to go to the detainees’ building. Because of his own looks, name and origin, people assumed he was against Assad, which is why he was told to send other doctors to the detainees’ building. Judge Koller asked about Alaa M.’s orientation. P54 replied that he was pro-Assad but could not point to specific facts that led him to this conclusion.
Another set of questions was posed regarding P54’s mention of Alaa M.’s “heroic deeds.” P54 fell silent again and asked for a break. Despite Judge Koller threatening that they would not take a break soon if P54 did not answer, the session was interrupted for the lunch break a couple of minutes later.
[80-minutes-break]
During the break, the Judges asked lawyer Dr. Mehring-Zier to their chamber. When everyone returned to the courtroom, Judge Koller expressed sympathy for P54’s condition and lack of concentration. He offered P54 to choose whether he wanted to finish his testimony that day or to come back two days later but suggested that finishing it might be better for the witness. Because Judge von Arnim noticed that Alaa M. was crying, the proceedings were interrupted again.
[5-minutes-break]
After short discussions with their lawyers, P54 agreed that he wanted to continue the questioning and Alaa M. affirmed that he was able to follow the session.
Subsequently, P54 was asked again to elaborate on Alaa M.'s “heroic deeds.” It took some time for P54 to provide a clear answer. Eventually, it became evident that he was referring to Alaa M. performing surgeries on detained patients despite lacking the necessary specialized medical training, something he would not have been permitted to do with regular military patients. In contrast, P54 recalled an incident in which he himself was asked to perform surgery on a patient for which he was not qualified, prompting him to seek the help of another doctor who had the relevant qualifications. P54 heard Alaa M. brag about his actions and was also told by colleagues who had witnessed Alaa M. performing the procedures.
When P54 was asked about operations without anesthesia, he fell silent once again. He responded to follow-up questions in a general manner and struggled to speak when asked about the Accused. Abruptly, Judge Koller reprimanded Defense Counsel Endres for gesturing and commenting on P54’s testimony, urging him to show respect for the highly traumatized witness. In the following minutes, it became difficult to follow P54’s testimony. He suggested that Alaa M. might have been involved in setting a broken bone without anesthesia but was unable to provide further details about the incident.
As the session progressed, P54 became more and more unfocused and stressed several times that he was not sure whether he remembered something about the Accused or whether he obtained this information from the Al-Jazeera video that he watched. He recounted that Alaa M. had issues with his kidney because of medication that he took for muscle gain, but did not remember if Alaa M. might have had a [redacted information] wound.
The last round of questions focused on events that P54 had witnessed in Harasta. P54 spoke more freely and informed the Judges’ that he suspected patients had been killed in the emergency room with [redacted information] injections and that he felt these injections in a nurse’s coat.
Afterward, Judge Koller asked the remaining parties how many more questions they wished to ask the witness, as he did not want P54 to endure the questioning for much longer. Defense Counsel Endres responded that he had many questions, as he observed that the trial had two main issues. First, that witnesses did not distinguish between what they had directly witnessed and what was hearsay. Second, that it was unclear when the witnesses had obtained the information, and whether they had learned it only online. Defense Counsel Endres added that Judge Koller’s reprimand had hurt him, but that he would not remain passive. Judge Koller told Endres not to be so sensitive. He remarked that he knew Endres was aware when the witness' testimony made the Accused look bad and that Endres would then attempt to distract them. Additionally, Judge Koller noted that the Judges' questioning was exceptionally thorough, as demonstrated by the fact that the other parties typically had very few questions for the witnesses.
[5-minutes-break]
In the end of the session, Additional Judge Otto asked P54 for an estimation when he transferred from Tishreen Hospital to Al-Mazzeh Hospital. P54 replied that it must have been [redacted time] 2011. Defense Counsel Bonn asked P54 if he had brought his document evidencing his time in Tishreen Hospital. P54 affirmed and showed the document to the parties. The document was returned to him and his lawyer agreed to send a scan to the Court.
[2-minutes-break]
After a short deliberation, Judge Koller affirmed that the Judges had no more questions. He thanked the witness and apologized for raising his voice. P54 was then dismissed.
The proceedings were adjourned at 4:10PM.
The next trial day will be on December 19, 2024, at 10:00AM.
Day 165 – December 19, 2024
On the second trial day, the Court questioned Mr. Heiko Springmann, a criminal investigator from the German Regional Criminal Police Office (LKA) about the two police questionings with P52. [Note: For more details on P52’s testimony, see Trial Report #88.]
The LKA had been contacted by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) because P52 made statements during his asylum hearing that could be relevant to the Federal Criminal Police Office's (BKA) structural investigation into the Syrian civil war. After the initial police questioning, P52 contacted Mr. Springmann via text to inform him that he had obtained additional information. This led to a second round of police questioning. Mr. Springmann noted that he remembered P52 because it was uncommon for a witness to follow the police's advice to report new information.
The first police questioning of P52 took place in [redacted location] on [redacted time]. Mr. Springmann testified that he attended the questioning with his colleague, Ms. Senneker, who documented the interview, and an interpreter he had worked with several times before. P52 affirmed that he understood the interpreter very well. After the questioning, the notes were printed and reviewed by P52 with help from the interpreter. Once confirmed, the document was signed by the parties. Judge Koller noted that Ms. Senneker’s signature was missing and remarked that it was regrettable that the person who took the notes did not sign the report.
When asked about the content of the questioning, Mr. Springmann’s testimony closely matched P52’s testimony in court. Mr. Springman informed the Court that he still had a recollection of the questioning but refreshed his memory by re-reading the transcript. He confirmed that P52 had been a colonel in the Syrian Republican Guard and worked as an instructor at a military training institution. Mr. Springmann recalled that P52 condemned the use of force against civilians, which ultimately led to his decision to leave Syria. He also remembered P52 visiting a relative at Homs Military Hospital, where the relative informed him that patients from the Free Syrian Army were being killed with injections. At the end of the police questioning, P52 arguably told Mr. Springmann that he would attempt to gather more information.
The second police questioning took place in [redacted location] on [redacted time]. On this occasion, Mr. Springmann was assisted by his colleague, Mr. Köhnke, who documented the interview, and the same interpreter as before. After the questioning, P52 was given the opportunity to review and add notes to the transcript with the interpreter’s assistance.
Mr. Springmann recalled that P52 had obtained new information from [redacted name], a doctor living in [redacted location]. [Note: Alaa M. claims this doctor falsely accused him.] P52 had written down the information in a notebook, which Mr. Springmann scanned and included in the case file. However, when Judge Koller mentioned that the notes were based on audio messages, Mr. Springmann appeared very surprised, emphasizing that he was certain P52 had obtained the information through a phone call.
When asked about the content of the questioning, Mr. Springmann’s testimony again closely aligned with P52’s. He recounted that P52 told him about an incident in Homs Military Hospital with a [redacted information], who died in the operating room [redacted information].
[25-minutes-break]
After a break that Defense Counsel Endres had requested, Mr. Springmann continued summarizing the second police questioning. He recounted that P52 told him about a second incident in Homs Military Hospital, in which the hospital director gathered all doctors and instructed them [redacted information].
P52 mentioned the name Alaa M., a doctor living in Germany who had been involved in the mistreatment of patients. Judge Rhode asked how significant it seemed for P52 to bring up Alaa M.’s name. Mr. Springmann explained that P52 read his information in the order it appeared in his notes. He said the focus for [redacted name] seemed to be the incident with the [redacted information], while the mention of Alaa M. was more of a side note. Regarding Alaa M.’s alleged misconduct, Mr. Springmann recalled P52 mentioning an incident where Alaa M. allegedly burned a patient’s genital area, but he could not remember further details.
Subsequently, Judge Koller asked Mr. Springmann if he remembered the links and screenshots P52 had sent after the second police questioning. Mr. Springmann recalled that the link led to a video of [redacted name] in [redacted information] media but could not remember the content of the screenshot. When the Judges presented him with a photo array of three men, Alaa M., [redacted name] and [redacted name], he could still not recall any details.
Defense Counsel Endres asked one question to clarify something he had misunderstood before. No one else had questions for Mr. Springmann. Judge Koller thanked and dismissed him.
Judge Koller informed the parties that the following day, the Court would hear a linguistic expert in the [redacted information] language, who had translated the police questioning report of P15. Judge Koller noted that the Court has [redacted information]’s police questioning report. He asked if the parties consented to inspecting and translating the document in the next hearing. All parties signaled their consent.
[2-minutes-break]
During the break, Alaa M. informed Defense Counsel Endres that Defense Counsel Bonn had previously told him that he would not consent to the introduction of [redacted information]’s questioning. Endres then spoke with Bonn on the phone and informed the Judges that the Defense did not consent to the proposed inspection and translation during the upcoming hearing.
The proceedings were adjourned at 11:50AM.
The next trial day will be on December 20, 2024, at 10:00AM.
Day 166 – December 20, 2024
On the third trial day, Presiding Judge Koller proposed to introduce the P54’s asylum hearing transcript and his visa application as documentary evidence by taking cognizance of the wording of the documents (self-reading procedure) [Section 249 (2) German Code of Criminal Procedure]. All parties agreed.
The Court then heard Ms. [redacted name] as a linguistic expert for the [redacted information] language. She had been asked to correct a translation of P15’s police questioning with the [redacted information] authorities.
[10-minutes-break]
The Court had to take a quick recess to resolve technical difficulties and then asked the linguistic expert to present her translation. In the beginning, there was some miscommunication because the linguistic expert thought she was supposed to reference only her corrections. Judge Koller stressed that she had to read out the full translation of the document.
The linguistic expert then began reading out her translation of a document from the [redacted information] Prosecutor’s Office. The document noted that P15 had been summoned to be questioned by the police. However, since the authorities could not identify P4’s address, he had not been summoned for questioning. A similar document was translated again later.
Next, the linguistic expert translated P15’s police questioning report. It detailed P15’s statement that he had witnessed Alaa M. mistreat civilian patients in Homs Military Hospital. According to the translated document, P15 heard Alaa M. say that he, Alaa M., poured alcohol over a patient’s genital area and burned it. The expert read out that P15 stated he personally treated the patient in his function as a [redacted information] and saw the patient’s injury. The document noted that Alaa M. had also allegedly told P15 that he, Alaa M., operated on civilian patients without anesthesia. The linguistic expert translated that P15 clarified he could not verify this incident because he had not seen the victims himself.
The linguistic expert was then dismissed. Judge Koller wished everyone a Merry Christmas. He addressed the Accused and expressed sympathy, stating that it must be especially hard to be in prison during the holidays, and that he hoped Alaa M. would be doing okay, given the circumstances. Alaa M. thanked him and wished everyone a Merry Christmas as well.
The proceedings were adjourned at 11:15AM.
The next trial day will be on January 13, 2025, 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