Inside the Mahmoud S. Trial #05: Examining the Accused
TRIAL OF Mahmoud S.
Stockholm District Court – Stockholm, Sweden
Trial Monitoring Summary #05
Hearing Date: November 24, 25, and 26, 2025
CAUTION: Some testimony may include graphic descriptions of torture, rape or other violent acts.
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 provides a summary of the proceedings while redacting certain details to protect witness privacy and to preserve the integrity of the trial.]
Trial Monitoring reports of the Mahmoud S. trial are a result of a partnership between the Syria Justice and Accountability Centre, the University of Stockholm, Sweden, and the Center for Victims of Torture (CVT).
SJAC’s 5th trial monitoring report details days 14, 15, and 16 of the trial of Mahmoud S. in Stockholm, Sweden. This week was dedicated to the questioning of the Plaintiff P7 and the Accused. P7 recounted his experience in Yarmouk camp and detailed the day at the Northern Checkpoint, when he was taken and tortured by Mahmoud S. On the following days, the Accused was questioned by the Prosecutor and the Defense team and information found on his phone were examined. Upon inquiry by the Prosecutor whether Mahmoud S. knew what happened to the people getting arrested at the checkpoint, the Accused claimed that he did not know what happened to people who were detained. He further testified that he had no knowledge about torture, killings, or other abuses taking place in the prisons.
Day 14 – November 24, 2025
Questioning of the Plaintiff
[Redacted name] P7 appeared before the Court and was questioned about his experiences at the northern checkpoint in Yarmouk and the involvements of the Accused. P7 testified that he lived in Yarmouk up until 2013, and left Syria in 2015. Proceedings were paused due to technical issues.
***
[15-minute break]
P7 testified that he left Yarmouk together with his [redacted information] during Ramadan 2013, which he recalled occurred somewhere between March and April, whereas the Prosecutor believed Ramadan 2013 was in July. P7 reported that in order to leave Yarmouk, they had to pass through both the first checkpoint controlled by the General Command and the Free Palestine Movement (FPM), and the second checkpoint controlled by the Syrian regime.
P7 was asked to explain the events of that day. P7 recounted that he and [redacted information] arrived at the first checkpoint, where P7 gave his ID to a man working there. P7 recounted that he then heard someone from behind who shouted “hey, hey, hey!”, upon which that man grabbed his shoulder and asked if he was the son of [name missing], to which P7 gave an affirmative answer. P7 recalled that after the course of these events, his [redacted information] informed him that this man was the Accused. P7 recalled that the Accused acted as if he had seen something when he pulled on P7's sweater, because the Accused had then accused P7 and his [redacted information] of carrying weapons. P7 testified that when he answered that he had no weapons, the Accused had told him to shut up, that he had hit him with an open hand on his back and had pushed him into a room where 20-25 young men were sitting handcuffed and their shirts pulled over their heads. P7 recounted that this was a separate room and that sheets, or other similar fabrics, that had been hung up to block the view into the room.
P7 recounted that he, from inside the room, had heard his [redacted information] screaming and begging them to let P7 go. P7 recalled having heard that the Accused loaded a gun, and that the Accused had told P7's [redacted information] that if his [redacted information] is a real man, then he should come and pick up his son.
P7 reported that he was not informed of the reason why he was detained, but his perception was that he was accused of carrying weapons, which he testified that he was not. P7 recalled that he was very scared when he was in the room, and was anxious of dying, because he had heard that they used to place arrested young men in a bus and take them to the “department.” P7 remembered that a man carrying a small child had stood in front of P7 in the line to the checkpoint and that another man pushed him into the separate room without his child, but P7 did not know what happened to him after that.
P7 recalled that after about 15-30 minutes, he was released from the room, because a man from the Syrian Army had helped his [redacted information] to get him free. At the point of his release, the Accused was not present at the checkpoint. P7 recalled that after having passed through both checkpoints, he stayed inside for some days due to fear of being arrested again.
***
[15-minute break]
***
Upon request from the Prosecutor, P7 pointed out the two checkpoints on a map. The Prosecutor also asked P7 if his [redacted information] had been in conflict with the Accused, and P7 remembered that he later found out that it was about a [redacted information]. The Prosecutor asked if P7 had contacted the Accused after these events, and P7 recalled that he sent the Accused a message in 2016 under a nickname, in which he told the Accused that he, P7, would sit in front of him, the Accused, again in the future. The Prosecutor showed the Court a photo of the Accused, in which P7 recognized the Accused and recalled that he had seen the photo on TikTok and Facebook before and that he also was shown similar photos by the police and during the investigation in Germany. P7 agreed with his previous statement that he recognized the man in the photo and that the photo showed the man that had arrested him, the Accused.
P7 was then questioned by the Plaintiffs’ Counsel. The Counsel asked P7 about his feelings of fear during the events. P7 reported that he has had a short temper since the events occurred. P7 dismissed an interpretation from an earlier testimony that he would have experienced difficulty in breathing when he was in the room where he was detained.
P7 was then questioned by Defense Counsel. The Counsel asked P7 if the Accused had done more than hitting him in the back once, which P7 said he had not. The Defense Counsel asked if P7's [redacted information] had been told to pay any money or to kiss the feet of the Accused, which P7 denied. P7 reported that he had gotten the impression that the General Command detained P7 but that the person they actually wanted was his father. P7 recalled not having seen the Accused after he left the separate room, and that he had not seen any bus. The Defense Counsel asked about the photos P7 had seen on social media, and how such information is spread on social media, and P7 reported that photos that already had been spread on TikTok are shown in livestreams. The Defense Counsel asked questions about other persons, including the brother of the Accused, [redacted name], F6, which P7 reported having recognized in a photo because F6 used to buy silver from P7's father.
The proceedings were adjourned at 12:00 PM.
The next trial day will be on November 25, 2025, at 9:00 AM.
Day 15 – November 25, 2025
The Accused´s Personal Circumstances and General Knowledge of the Situation
Prosecutors began by asking questions about Mahmoud S.'s upbringing and family. He said that he was born and raised in the Yarmouk camp. He has 14 siblings—8 sisters and 6 brothers. He has, among others, a younger brother named [redacted name], F6 who was a hairdresser, and an eldest brother named [redacted name], F7, who had a gold shop on Loubia Street (Yarmouk) that Mahmoud S. himself had worked in.
The Prosecutor then asked him to talk about his life in 2011 and 2012. Mahmoud S. replied that at that time, he was working in the gold shop, partying and living a normal life, and that nothing had changed until they left the Yarmouk camp. He explained that it was a Friday, December 15, that he went to Bab Touma to eat food and party in the evening, and that he also slept there during the night. The next day, his nephew called him and said that the camp was lost and that the armed were everywhere, which according to Mahmoud S. were Al-Nusra Front and Hamas. His sister also called him at noon and said that planes had bombed the Abdul Qadir mosque. He then returned to the camp and saw that the regime was on the outside and the armed on the inside. He further explained that he entered a place called Mashrou ́ مشروع ("the project") and then the shelling began starting at 5 a.m. on December 17. Mahmoud S. testified that everyone left Yarmouk and that he himself went to get his uncle and uncle's wife. He then stayed 1-2 days inside the Yarmouk camp, then stayed 10 days in a hotel outside the camp, while his brother F9 took their mother to Sahnaya and he then went to Lebanon for a few days.
The Prosecutor then asked about the different groups. Mahmoud S. explained that after they left, it was mainly the Al-Nusra Front left. He argued that it was the People's Committees that allowed Al-Nusra into Yarmouk, that it turned out that Hamas had "bought" the Committees, and that 90% of the Committees received payment from both al-Nusra and Hamas. The Prosecutor was interested in hearing the situation afterwards. Mahmoud S. explained that after everyone had left the camp, the question was who would take back the camp, which the government had repeatedly brought up. A reconciliation committee was formed to negotiate with the armed groups. Based on this, the Prosecutor wondered where the Free Palestine Movement (FPM) was, whereupon Mahmoud S. replied that they were not there then, but that the FPM came later with supplies.
Next, the Prosecutor presented a Facebook post in which the Free Syria Army (FSA) was seeking people from FPM, with Mahmoud S. mentioned among others. He denied membership in FPM and did not know why they wanted him. Subsequently, the Prosecutor presented a memorandum from the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM) regarding the FPM chain of command, questioning why Mahmoud S. is in it, but he said he did not know.
***
[20-minute break]
***
Information found on the Accused´s phone
In Mahmoud S.'s phone, a picture was found of him sitting on a chair under the FPM logo, which according to him was behind the Bashir Mosque. In another picture, he was sitting in an office that he said was [redacted name]'s, F8’s, office. After that, the Prosecutor also highlighted some contacts they found on his phone, such as "FPM sniper" (qnas flstin harrakat hurrah), and particularly noteworthy were two contacts with the word "Mantika" after the name. The Prosecutor described that they had identified "Mantika" as part of the Security Service [i.e. Branch 227, also known as Al-Mantika Branch], which Mahmoud S. confirmed. The Prosecutor then brought up a chat conversation between Mahmoud S. and [redacted name], F9. Mahmoud S. described F9 as a detective in Syria [note: The word مُخبِر in the Syrian context means “informant.” It could also be translated – less commonly – into “detective,” which is how it was interpreted in court], and explained that the conversation was about people printing fake money. The Prosecutor followed up in asking whether he had provided information to the Criminal Police and Security Service while he was in Sweden, but Mahmoud S. only replied that Syria already knows who they are.
***
[15-minute break]
***
The Accused then had to answer to further contacts that had been found on his phone. Mahmoud S. testified that he had met [redacted name], F5 once in 2013, and confirmed contact with [redacted name], F8 and a film of 1 min and 17 seconds taken at F8’s place in which a board with the FPM logo was visible. Mahmoud S. also explained that Wael S. [one of five Accused in the Yarmouk trial in Koblenz, Germany], [redacted name], F10 and his brother [redacted name], F11, and nephew Sameer S. [one of five Accused in the Yarmouk trial in Koblenz, Germany] belonged to the General Command. He also said that Moafak D. first belonged to the General Command, but that he was loyal to [redacted name], F8 and later went over to the FPM. From here, the Prosecutor moved on to the German Court of Appeal final judgment that convicted Moafak D. of a war crime. Mahmoud S. testified that he knew about the verdict and also knew the names of some of the witnesses but that they were fake, including [redacted name], F17 who, according to him, was from his neighborhood and belonged to either Hamas or Al-Nusra.
***
[1-hour break]
***
The Demonstration in Yarmouk on July 13, 2012 and the Northern Checkpoint
The Prosecutor then asked about the demonstration on July 13, 2012. Mahmoud S. testified that he neither knew anything about the demonstration nor had heard anything. He was then asked to clarify what he was doing on July 13, to which he replied that he was either at home or in the neighborhood. He further said that on Fridays, a typical day would be that his nephew bought breakfast in the morning, after which he met friends in the neighborhood. Around 2 PM they’d part ways, and he would then usually spend time with his mother. The Prosecutor then brought up what the Plaintiffs had previously said regarding the demonstration, including [redacted name], P11, who in a previous trial hearing testified that he saw the Accused and his brother shooting in the demonstration. Mahmoud S. claimed several times that he had never seen these people before the hearing and denied the alleged shooting and any involvement in the demonstration.
***
[15-minute break]
***
The next part of the questioning dealt with the checkpoints that were set up in the Yarmouk camp. Mahmoud S. said that the checkpoints, demarcated with metal bars, were set up at the Bashir Mosque, where they checked ID cards and searched women.
The proceedings were adjourned at 4:30 PM.
The next trial day will be on November 26, 2025 at 9:00 AM.
Day 16 – November 26, 2025
On November 26, the Prosecution and the Defense continued questioning Mahmoud S.
The Prosecutor’s Questioning of Mahmoud S.
The Prosecutor continued questioning Mahmoud S. regarding the checkpoints that were set up at the Bashir Mosque. Mahmoud S. confirmed that he had seen individuals being brought into and out of the shelters, including three girls on one occasion, as well as [redacted name], P5 when he exited the shelter. However, Mahmoud S. testified that he did not know where these individuals were being taken and that he was not involved in the procedures themselves. On one occasion, he assisted a person who had fled from the shelter in retrieving his identification card. Mahmoud S. went to the checkpoint and managed to have the individual’s ID card returned. When asked by the Prosecutor why this person had been placed in the shelter in the first place, Mahmoud S. responded that they wanted to check him.
Regarding how often he was present at the checkpoints, Mahmoud S. estimated approximately six to seven times. He further testified that he believes he returned to Yarmouk around March 2013 and remained there until approximately June or July 2013, although he was not certain about these details. Mahmoud S. denied ever having worn a mask while being present at the checkpoints.
When the Prosecutor asked further questions about the safety of being present in the area, Mahmoud S. testified that individuals who “were not implicated in anything” could move freely. Those who were implicated could be arrested at the checkpoint. He explained that being “implicated” referred to individuals carrying weapons or narcotics. When questioned about whether activists and demonstrators could also be arrested, he referred to [redacted name], P4 and claimed that P4 had been granted a postponement of his military service by the authorities after completing part of it, and was thereafter able to flee to Lebanon without being detained by the Syrian authorities.
The Prosecutor also inquired about the reasons individuals crossed the checkpoints. Mahmoud S. explained that some people needed to leave the area for work, while others crossed in order to obtain food. He added that food supplies were restricted in Yarmouk to prevent armed groups from stealing and selling them on the black market. Food supplies were also restricted in order to make the armed groups leave Yarmouk. The Prosecutor asked Mahmoud S. to describe what Shahiba is. Mahmoud S. replied that Shahiba is a made-up name for those who supported their own country or wanted to protect the Yarmouk district or their homes.
***
[15-minute break]
***
The Prosecutor then switched to ask about Mahmoud S.’s earlier statements in the investigation. She noted that on previous occasions, he had stated that he was present at the checkpoints approximately three to four times and that his presence there began in December 2012. In another interview, he had said that he was there intermittently, roughly once a week to once every ten days. The Prosecutor also questioned Mahmoud S.’s claim that only guilty individuals could be arrested at the checkpoints, given that he simultaneously asserted that he had protected innocent people who had been singled out. In response, Mahmoud S. said that he did not know whether anyone had been recorded or registered as an activist or demonstrator.
***
[15-minute break]
***
The Prosecutor inquired if Mahmoud S. knew what happened to the people getting arrested at the checkpoint. Mahmoud S. said that he did not know what happened to people who were detained. He further testified that he had no knowledge about torture, killings, or other abuses taking place in the prisons. He furthermore said he himself had some friends that were detained, and that it is still unknown what happened to them.
***
[60-minute break]
***
The Defense’s Questioning of Mahmoud S.
The Defense asked whether it was common to know people who worked for the Syrian Security Service. Mahmoud S. replied that it was. He added that in Syria, it was normal to socialize with everyone and to maintain a broad social circle, regardless of ethnicity and profession.
The Defense then asked about the term Shahiba and its meaning. Mahmoud S. reiterated that Shahiba was a label applied to those who wanted to defend their country. He explained that being identified as Shahiba could be as simple as being friends with someone in the Syrian Security Service or appearing in a photograph with an image of Assad in the background. He also emphasized that not all individuals labeled as Shahiba were armed.
The questioning then turned to the armed groups present in Yarmouk, such as Hamas and Jabhat Al-Nusra. Mahmoud S. testified that no one in the district wanted them there and that they had no support among the local population. He added that these groups displaced residents from their homes and caused extensive destruction to houses and shops.
The Defense then shifted to questions about the demonstration. Mahmoud S. testified that he had neither heard the demonstration nor the gunfire when it occurred. He explained that the demonstration took place far from his home, as the Palestinian roundabout was a considerable distance away. He was even unsure whether he was in the Yarmouk Camp at the time of the demonstration. The Defense also asked about his attitude toward spending time with people who had committed criminal acts. Mahmoud S. responded that he would be against it.
The proceedings were adjourned at 1:36 PM.
The next trial day will be on December 4, 2025.
___________________________
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