Jun 15, 2023 15 min read Trial Monitoring

Inside the Alaa M. Trial #42: Forensic Analysis of the Caesar Files

Higher Regional Court – Frankfurt, Germany

Trial Monitoring Summary #42

Hearing Dates: May 9 & 11, 2023

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.

SJAC’s 42nd trial monitoring report details days 71 and 72 of the trial of Alaa M. in Frankfurt, Germany. Prof. Dr. Rothschild, the director of the forensic medical institute in Cologne was summoned as a forensic expert and witness for both trial days this week. On the first day, the expert provided his evaluation of scars and injuries of the Accused and several witnesses as requested by the Prosecution. Prof. Dr. Rothschild provided conclusions on the plausibility of the proclaimed event as the cause of the visible scars. The second part of the session was dedicated to the probability of certain events described in the indictment and by the witnesses. Prof. Dr. Rothschild was asked to evaluate four incidents in detail and provided his findings.

Prof. Dr. Rothschild returned as a forensic expert and presented three reports based on the Caesar Files on the second day of this week. He provided three detailed PowerPoint presentations. In each of them, he systematically explained the Prosecutor’s request, the limitations the institute faced, and the findings based on the 27,000 photographs. The first report concerned general statistics on gender and age, department numbers, photos per department, and photos per corpse. It further detailed findings regarding the general condition, signs of mistreatment and torture, and where applicable, the cause of death. The second report addressed the Prosecutor’s request to assess evidence of torture methods used in Syrian state institutions. Based on the photographs provided, the forensic team concluded that in most cases, mistreatment and torture as described by the witnesses were plausible, frequent, and systematic. The last part of this trial day was dedicated to the assessment of the detention conditions. Likewise, the witness testimonies were corroborated by the findings of the forensic institute. Prof. Dr. Rothschild concluded his overall assessment with the following statements:

90% of the individuals in the photographs were dead with certainty
Several indicators of mistreatment were identified
Several indicators of negligence were identified
The death of approximately 40 individuals could be associated with military combat situations
Several individuals did not have visible indicators that could be evaluated
Several differences between the departments were identified, but the commonalities override them by far and suggest systematicity.

Highlights:

Day 71 – May 9, 2023

On this trial day, Prof. Dr. Rothschild, the director of the Forensic Medical Institute in Cologne was summoned as a forensic expert and witness. In the beginning, his professional record was presented to demonstrate his expertise and abilities in the field of forensics, particularly in the field of torture and other forms of violence. He has previously been heard as an expert at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and worked for the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). He also testified in the criminal trial against Eyad A. and Anwar R. in Koblenz, Germany as a forensic expert.

Before the in-court testimony, the Court had sent a request to Prof. Dr. Rothschild’s Institute and asked for detailed forensic evaluations of scars and injuries. The evaluation was based either on photographs that the expert was provided with by the Court or after a physical inspection that was conducted on the premises of the Institute. The Court further requested that descriptions of symptoms, physical reactions, or consequences to the health of persons that were raised during the trial be assessed against the likelihood that they were caused by the alleged treatment.

Prof. Dr. Rothschild explained that his evaluations followed the criteria outlined in the Istanbul Protocol, a manual on the effective investigation and documentation of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. [Note: The Istanbul Protocol recognizes that “[t]o the extent that physical evidence of torture exists, it provides important confirmatory evidence that a person has been tortured. However, the absence of such physical evidence should not be construed to suggest that torture did not occur, since such acts of violence against persons frequently leave no marks or permanent scars” (para. 161).] According to the Protocol, there are five categories according to which the physician evaluates physical scars or marks against the corresponding statements of the patients. These categories allow drawing a conclusion in their consistency and range from (a) to (e) [see Istanbul Protocol, para. 187]:

(a) Not consistent: the lesion could not have been caused by the trauma described;
(b) Consistent with: the lesion could have been caused by the trauma described, but it is non-specific and there are many other possible causes;
(c) Highly consistent: the lesion could have been caused by the trauma described, and there are few other possible causes;
(d) Typical of: this is an appearance that is usually found with this type of trauma, but there are other possible causes;
(e) Diagnostic of: this appearance could not have been caused in any way other than that described.

After Prof. Dr. Rothschild explained the methodology, he presented the findings of the institute. The first evaluation concerned M.'s statement that he was shot in the lower leg. Prof. Dr. Rothschild found that the scar he inspected via photographs to be a plausible result of the described event. M. insisted on showing the scar again in court and Prof. Dr. Rothschild reiterated that the description was compatible with the scar.

The next three evaluations concerned the survivor witnesses. Photographs were shown and Prof. Dr. Rothschild explained in medical terms what may have caused the scars. He concluded that they were compatible with the descriptions by the witnesses made in court. One of the witnesses was inspected by Prof. Dr. Rothschild in his Institute. Another witness was inspected by a former colleague of Prof. Dr. Rothschild who will be summoned to testify in the next trial session. In most cases, Prof. Dr. Rothschild concluded that the scars could be categorized as (c) highly consistent (the lesion could have been caused by the trauma described, and there are few other possible causes) or (d) typical of (this is an appearance that is usually found with this type of trauma, but there are other possible causes).

The second part of the session was dedicated to the probability of certain events described in the indictment and by the witnesses. Prof. Dr. Rothschild was asked to evaluate four incidents in detail. The first concerned the event when a patient was given an injection and presumably died because of its effect. Prof. Dr. Rothschild explained under which circumstances an injection that is given intra-muscularly causes death within the timeframe as explained by the witnesses. Death after 15-30 minutes may be caused by intoxication with cyanide, lidocaine, or potassium chloride. The latter is available in most hospitals but would have to be injected in a particularly high dose (20ml) [about 0.68 oz]. The Court wondered how an injection this size looked like and asked Prof. Dr. Rothschild to bring one for inspection to the next session.

The second event which Prof. Dr. Rothschild examined concerned the description of the death of P4's brother and P12's cousin. Both witnesses gave details about the circumstances in which their relative allegedly died following an epileptic seizure and the administration of a pill by M. Prof. Dr. Rothschild explained comprehensively under which circumstances an epileptic seizure may cause death. He illustrated that a generalized seizure can be provoked by extreme light exposure but also deprivation of sleep and prolonged stress and violence. Upon detailed inquiry of the Judges, the Prosecutor, and the Defense, Prof. Dr. Rothschild explained that he was not aware of any chemical substance or medication that can trigger a deadly seizure on its own. According to the indictment and the witness’ testimonies, the patient was given a large pill, but it remained unclear to Prof. Dr. Rothschild what type of medication this may have been. He was thus unable to evaluate its potential impact.

Prof. Dr. Rothschild’s professionality and competence had a unique authority in the courtroom. His conclusion in this case left a certain atmosphere in the room. Tacitly, the parties seemed to agree that if Prof. Dr. Rothschild, with his extensive wealth of knowledge, could not name a substance, then it may not exist. At the beginning of the next session, Prof. Dr. Rothschild will return to address the issue and add details to his assessment.

The third incident concerned the burning of the genitals of a patient. Based on descriptions by the witnesses and one sketch previously drawn by P15, Prof. Dr. Rothschild explained the general consequences of burnings which aligned with the testimonies. Prof. Dr. Rothschild concluded that the descriptions were plausible overall but due to a very limited set of information, he could not make a strong assessment. Following only a few questions by the Defense Team, Prof. Dr. Rothschild addressed the last incident he was requested to assess. It concerned the alleged performance of a surgery without anesthesia by M. Prof. Dr. Rothschild was asked to examine if the surgery to treat the fracture which the patient suffered could have been started without anesthesia and then operated in the described manner. Prof. Dr. Rothschild explained how the lege artis surgery would be performed and under which circumstances a deviation from this process could be imaginable. He concluded overall that it is plausible that it could be performed without anesthesia but only under massive pain and screaming with the risk that it leads to unconsciousness of the patient. Prof. Dr. Rothschild ostensively reported on the pain and suffering a patient would have to endure and that he would have to be held or tied-up to perform a surgery as narrated. The Judges asked two clarifying questions before adjourning the session.

Prof. Dr. Rothschild will return to evaluate the Caesar files on the following day.

Day 72 – May 11, 2023

On this trial day, Prof. Dr. Rothschild returned as a forensic expert and presented three reports based on the Caesar Files. The Caesar Files encompass thousands of photographs of bodies that showed signs of starvation, brutal beatings, strangulation, and other forms of torture and killings. The defector who smuggled the pictures out of Syria, code-named “Caesar”, was found to be a truthful and credible witness by an inquiry team in 2014. An assessment of the exhibits with special attention to Branch 251 was previously provided by Prof. Dr. Rothschild during the Koblenz trial in 2020. Today, Prof. Dr. Rothschild presented the same findings for the overall torture practices and added specific details raised in the request by the Attorney General.

At the beginning of the session, more than 20 spectators were present in the public gallery. Half of them left before the lunch break and many during the second part of the session. Presiding Judge Koller scolded some young spectators during the session because the topic required reverence and decency. Some spectators left because the presentation of the photos was distressing. Four spectators stayed until the end, two of them were press representatives.

Before the start of Prof. Dr. Rothschild’s presentations regarding the Caesar files, some clarifying questions regarding the last session were raised and a syringe with a capacity of 20ml [about 0.68 oz] was inspected. Due to technical issues, the start of the presentation was delayed. During this waiting time, Prof. Dr. Rothschild asked to add details to one of the incidents he examined on the previous day. He recalled that upon questioning, he testified that he was not aware of any medication that provokes an epileptic seizure. He explained that he reflected on this question and said that he was not aware of any that provokes it, but that substances such as amphetamine type stimulants (for instance, cocaine and ecstasy), but also antihistamines and GHB can reduce the activation threshold for a seizure. Since none of the parties had additional questions, Prof. Dr. Rothschild started PowerPoint presentations that detailed the visual and written presentation of the findings based on the Prosecutor’s request.

1) Report I: Forensic Analysis of the Caesar Files: Statistics and Causes of Death

Prof. Dr. Rothschild started by explaining that 27,000 photos were forwarded to the institute. The Prosecutor asked the forensic team to evaluate every case according to parameters such as signs of death, causes of death, the position of the bodies, wounds and scars, and clothing. Based on these criteria, the forensic team was requested to draw conclusions for each corpse regarding the general condition, signs of mistreatment and torture, and if applicable, the cause of death. The Prosecutor further asked the Institute whether it was possible to identify the respective department. If yes, the Prosecutor was also interested whether a certain pattern was recognizable for each department.

After explaining the limitations such as quality of the photographs or the lack of visibility of certain body parts, Prof. Dr. Rothschild provided general statistics on gender and age, department numbers, photos per department, and photos per corpse. A total of 6,821 individuals were identified of which one was a female and 65% were at the age of 20-45. In most cases, four pictures were available for each corpse.

Prof. Dr. Rothschild continued by explaining that clear signs of death were identifiable for 90% of the individuals. The remaining 10% are presumably dead, but based on the photos and the parameters, this could not be stated with 100% certainty. He then categorized the corpses according to their status of previous care, hygiene and nutrition. 2/3 suffered from a reduced or significantly reduced care and nutritional condition. Prof. Dr. Rothschild then turned to injuries, scars, and other marks. A total of 50% showed signs of visible injuries. The expert concluded that 90% of these injuries were caused by blunt force, rarely by sharp force. After a short break, he explained more details about the injuries. He illustrated that common signs of blunt force predominantly spread over the face, upper body, and the arms when used in defense. He was surprised that the lesions were primarily located on the legs and feet of the corpses, which he considered to be very unusual.

Subsequently, Prof. Dr. Rothschild presented the results of potential causes of death for the 90% of corpses which could be classified as deceased with certainty. Causes of death that were identified were starvation (8%), suffocation by compression of the throat (2,5%), bleeding to death (2%), lung fat embolism (0,7%), and a few cases of traumatic brain injury, and polytrauma. Prof. Dr. Rothschild further explained that other causes that do not leave visible marks could also be applicable. Among them are electroshocks, intoxication, internal bleeding, suffocation, drowning, and positional suffocation through forced postures. He added that natural causes of death may apply, but due to the age of the individuals, he considered them to be unlikely in most cases. Prof. Dr. Rothschild concluded his presentation with the question that arose during witness’ testimonies. Some of the corpses had “missing eyes”. Prof. Dr. Rothschild found that the eyes were removed post-mortem due to the limited amount of blood. Based on information from many of the photographs, he concluded that scavengers like ravens and crows, and a type of wasps is the most probable explanation. They must have picked the eyes post-mortem.

Only a few questions were posed by the Judges and the Defense regarding this report. An important question was raised by Judge Adlhoch who wanted to know if Prof. Dr. Rothschild could identify a systematicity in the manner in which the photos were taken which Prof. Dr. Rothschild confirmed. Judge Rhode further asked if there were signs of manipulation of the photographs as brought forward by Assad. Prof. Dr. Rothschild denied and explained that he did not find evidence for alterations, yet, he added that he is not a technician.

2) Report II: Forensic Analysis of the Caesar Files: Torture Methods

The forensic expert continued with his second report. The Prosecutor asked the Institute to assess evidence of torture methods used in Syrian state institutions. The alleged methods were examined against several witness’ testimonies to draw conclusions of the plausibility of the purported practices based on the provided photographs. The following torture methods, their plausibility and their frequency were presented by the forensic expert:

Beatings during ‘welcome parties’: general beatings are plausible; whether they happened during certain parties could not be judged by the expert
Sexualized violence: could not be ruled out, but the photographs which could be evaluated did not show signs of (targeted) sexual violence
Beatings without tools: plausible and very frequent in all departments
Beatings with tools like cables, belts, sticks, pipes: plausible and very frequent in all departments
Beatings of the soles of the feet (‘Falaqa’): plausible and frequent
Torture by ‘Doulab’ (a method described as forcing someone to bend-over in a tire and beating him/her): plausible in several cases
Torture by electric shock: rather difficult to judge due to a lack of marks, some photographs show signs that could be attributed to thermal impact
Forced standing: plausible and frequent due to varicose dermatitis, one-sided
Torture by ‘Shabeh’ (a method described as hanging persons up on arms or legs and beating them): plausible and frequent, but not identifiable if injuries were caused simultaneously or successively
‘German Chair’ (a method described as breaking one’s back over a chair): could not be verified based on the available photographs
‘Flying Carpet’ – ‘Besat – ar – Reeh’ (a method described as fixating someone’s torso to the ground on a specific instrument and beating him/her): plausible in some cases
Forcing the administration of chemicals: not found
Burnings: plausible in several cases
Pulling of nails: one case confirmed
Torture in combination with medical treatment: plausible in several cases, but it could not be verified if the medical treatment preceded the mistreatment or vise-versa, certain in some cases that the necessary after-care was lacking
Psychological torture and forced eating and drinking of inedible substances: not possible to be evaluated
Executions and left-to-die: some cases plausible with certain methods (e.g., a cut throat, and gunshot wounds).

After presenting the identified methods, Prof. Dr. Rothschild clarified an important aspect. He explained that several corpses were in a condition that one had to be sure that the person would die. He added that he could not directly label these cases execution but claimed that it must have been done with a clear knowledge that a person would not survive. Presiding Judge Koller informed him that the legal term for this is a second-degree intent (dolus directus) [The ICC defines “dolus directus of the second degree as not requiring direct intent to bring about the objective elements of the crime, but an awareness ‘that it (the consequence) will occur in the ordinary course of events’.”]. Prof. Dr. Rothschild confirmed that he believes that causing pain and suffering was intended but with a significant effort necessary. He added that this must have been done with the knowledge that the person would die.

Prof. Dr. Rothschild then turned to the last question raised by the Prosecutor related to the types of injuries. It concerned the likeliness and quantity of individuals who died in combat. Based on the photographs, Prof. Dr. Rothschild concluded that approximately 40 individuals may have been killed or showed signs that could be attributed to military combat situations.

The Court was silently listening to Prof. Dr. Rothschild’s presentation and obviously shocked and concerned, so only a few questions ensued. When Counsel Endres asked a general question about hangings, almost angrily, Presiding Judge Koller interrupted him. He made clear that hearing this was intense enough, and requested Counsel Endres to refrain from asking for any more details that are unrelated to the indictment. He issued a break before Prof. Dr. Rothschild presented the last report.

3) Report III: Forensic Analysis of the Caesar Files: Detention Conditions

The last part of this trial day was dedicated to the assessment of the detention conditions. The Prosecutor requested the Forensic Institute to evaluate the plausibility of the details provided by the witnesses based on the photographs. Prof. Dr. Rothschild presented the following statements and concluded with the degree of plausibility:

Overcrowded, small cells, forced standing on one leg: plausible and several indicators available, with particular attention to the co-called elephant legs that are caused when standing on one leg for a prolonged time
Cells were so small and overcrowded that detainees suffocated: plausible and several cases identified
Inadequate general hygiene: plausible, several indicators such as clothing of the detainees
Inadequate access to toilets: not possible to evaluate
Parasitic infections and hygienic treatment: plausible and several cases available that showed signs of parasitic infections and inadequate self-treatment of patients
Inadequate possibility for body hygiene: plausible and very frequent
Level of nutrition based on diverse testimonies of the frequency of provision: plausible for all levels, some individuals appeared healthy, others died of starvation across all departments.

Regarding the lack of nutrition, Prof. Dr. Rothschild pointed out that some corpses had skin thickening at the eyebrows, between fingers, and the groin region. He explained that they are caused by a chronological and prolonged lack of vitamins. This symptom is known from seafaring when fruits and vegetables were not available and from concentration camps. With a concerned comportment, Prof. Dr. Rothschild added that he has never seen these symptoms throughout his career – besides in textbooks. Implicitly, it became clear that the last time evidence for such a treatment became public, was during the persecution of the Jews by the Nazi-regime in Germany. After a short moment of silence, Prof. Dr. Rothschild addressed the last witness statement:

Lack of water supply: plausible due to signs of dehydration
Lack of medical care: plausible in several cases, particularly relevant in the so-called Al-Khatib Department, sign of previous care but subsequent abandonment and lack of sufficient material.

After presenting these findings, Prof. Dr. Rothschild summarized the main results. He concluded by stating that:

90% of the individuals in the photographs were dead with certainty
Several indicators of mistreatment were identified
Several indicators of negligence were identified
The death of approximately 40 individuals could be associated with military combat situations
Several individuals did not have visible signs that could be evaluated
Several differences between the departments were identified, but the commonalities override them by far and suggest systematicity.

One question by Judge Adlhoch followed which concerned the size of the cells. She was interested in what being forced to stand meant for the size of the room and the number of individuals per m². Prof. Dr. Rothschild explained that there are some reports that indicate that 9-10 persons per m² would force the detainees to stand. Since no other questions were posed, Presiding Judge Koller thanked Prof. Dr. Rothschild for his impressive evaluation. He added that due to his professionality, listening to this was more endurable. He thanked him before he was dismissed and adjourned the proceedings.

___________________________

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.