Inside the Mahmoud S. Trial #10: A Turning of the Tide
TRIAL OF MAHMOUD S.
Solna District Court – Stockholm, Sweden
Trial Monitoring Summary #10
Hearing Date: January 13, 14, and 15, 2026
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 10th trial monitoring report details days 29, 30, and 31 of the trial of Mahmoud S. in Stockholm, Sweden. This week, W10 described the severe restrictions at the Yarmouk checkpoints and recounted how Mahmoud S. arrested her son P7, an event that left him deeply traumatized. She clarified details from earlier statements, citing stress and the passage of time. W11 later confirmed the incident, described a prior dispute with Mahmoud S., and testified about subsequent threats and the long‑term impact on P7.
Moreover, W12 testified about the roadblock near Yarmouk, identifying multiple pro‑regime groups stationed there and describing Mahmoud S.’s growing role in deciding who was stopped or arrested. He recounted an incident in which he was nearly detained, and addressed inconsistencies between his earlier statements and trial testimony. He also recalled his later encounters with Mahmoud S. in [redacted location], where the Accused allegedly boasted about torture and became violent against the witness. During cross‑examination, W12 acknowledged discrepancies in his prior statements and clarified his limited access to media before leaving Syria.
Day 29 – January 13, 2026
[SJAC was unable to monitor today’s trial day.]
The next hearing will take place on January 14, 2026, at 9:00 AM.
Day 30 – January 14, 2026
The proceedings on this trial day began at 9:10 AM, with [redacted name], W10 being the first witness of the day to testify before the Court.
The Prosecutor’s Questioning of W10
The Prosecutor initially asked questions about W10’s background, family and life in Yarmouk before the war broke out. The witness recounted that, by the time the war began, around 2011 and 2012, she lived in Yarmouk with her five children, husband and mother-in-law. The first time they left Yarmouk was the morning after the airstrikes on Yarmouk on December 16, 2012. A couple of weeks later, the family returned to Yarmouk. After the flight bombings of Yarmouk, the possibility to enter or exit the camp was heavily restricted. At some times of the day, the checkpoints were completely closed, with no possibility to pass through them. During some hours of the day, people were able to pass through, but it was mainly restricted to those working in the public section who needed to get to work or for those who needed to get food outside of the camp.
According to W10, they had prepared a lot of food for the initial period after they returned to Yarmouk, and they therefore had enough food for a while. After a couple of weeks, however, she had to exit the camp in order to get food for her family. W10 recalled that there were two checkpoints by the Al-Bashir Mosque: one belonging to the Syrian army and one belonging to the General Command (GC). W10 testified she was the one who went out to collect food, as her children were too young, and it was dangerous for men to pass the checkpoints. When the Prosecutor asked her to clarify why it was more dangerous for men to pass the checkpoints than for women, W10 said she had seen how some men were arrested, taken away and abused by the checkpoint guards. She had also seen how some men were pulled into a car, and later found out through other people that these men were taken to the Al-Bashir Mosque to get their ID’s checked.
***
[15-minute break]
***
After the first break, the Prosecutor asked about the day W10’s son [redacted name], P7 [and Plaintiff in the proceedings], was arrested at the checkpoint. The Prosecutor asked W10 to clarify if she knew whether Mahmoud S. was one of the guards at the checkpoint before the day the family passed through the checkpoints. W10 confirmed, adding that she had heard it from others who passed through the checkpoint. She had already known earlier who Mahmoud S. was, although they never had any personal relationship nor talked to each other. On the day her son was arrested, the family had heard the checkpoints would close at 11 AM and not open up again. Therefore, they wanted to leave for her brother’s home in [redacted location]. As her mother-in-law refused to leave, her husband decided to stay with her in Yarmouk while W10 went to the checkpoints with her five children. On the way to the checkpoints, she told P7, who was [redacted information] years old at the time, to stay close by her side, as she knew many young boys had been stopped when attempting to pass through the checkpoints.
When they arrived at the GC checkpoint, Mahmoud S. stopped P7, checked his ID card, and asked whether he was the son of [redacted name], W11. Mahmoud S. then lifted P7’s shirt, noticed an injury on his back, and asked whether the injury had been sustained while carrying weapons together with his father. Before the Court, W10 clarified that the scar resulted from a surgery performed many years earlier. Mahmoud S. then slapped P7 across the face and forcibly pulled him into a room adjacent to the checkpoint.
W10 recalled that she screamed at Mahmoud S. and begged him to release her son. She attempted to enter the room into which P7 had been taken in order to free him, but Mahmoud S. dragged her out. While there, she observed several men sitting with their shirts pulled over their heads. Another individual at the checkpoint told her to leave and promised to help secure her son’s release later. As she was leaving, she informed a woman working for the Syrian Army about what had happened to her son. Although she did not trust this person, she passed through a second checkpoint and called her brother to report the incident.
Later, she saw P7 leaving the checkpoint in the company of that woman; however, he was not reunited with his family at that time. When W10 later arrived at her brother’s home, P7 was there and was reunited with his family at the brother’s home in [redacted location]. She then called her husband to inform him of what had occurred and warned him to exercise caution when passing through checkpoints, as it appeared that Mahmoud S. had issues with him.
The Prosecutor lastly asked W10 to describe how Mahmoud S. was dressed when arresting P7. She said he was dressed in [redacted information]. However, as she was very stressed at the moment she confronted Mahmoud S., she did not take too much notice of how he was dressed at the time.
***
[15-minute break]
***
The Plaintiff’s Counsel Questioning of W10
The Plaintiff’s Counsel asked W10 how the incident at the checkpoints affected P7. To this, W10 testified she did not dare to let him go outside her brother’s home in [redacted location]. She further told the Court that P7 was traumatized and anxious long after leaving Syria for [redacted location].
The Defense’s Counsel Questioning of W10
The Defense asked questions about what W10 had stated in the investigation with the police. In earlier investigations, she had stated that Mahmoud S. was wearing a [redacted information]. The Defense asked her to clarify if she remembered he had a military uniform. She replied that she cannot recall that at this time, as it was a long time ago, and she was very stressed at that moment. The Defense also asked her to clarify when the incident with Mahmoud S. occurred, as in the earlier investigation, she had stated it occurred around 2014. W10 testified she has a hard time remembering specific dates and years of the incidents, but that these events occurred sometime around 2013 and 2014.
The witness was then dismissed, and her husband, W11, called to testify after the break.
***
[60-minute break]
***
The Prosecution’s Questioning of W11
The questioning of W11 began at 1:30 PM. At the request of the Prosecutor, W11 initially provided the Court with a brief account of his earlier life and family background, which largely corresponded to the testimony given by his wife, W10. Unlike his wife, he had never crossed the northern checkpoints in Yarmouk, as he was aware of the danger involved.
When asked by the Prosecutor whether he had ever had a conflict with Mahmoud S., W11 responded that he had not. He did, however, recount an incident that occurred before the outbreak of the war, when he had rented a car to Mahmoud S. Upon its return, the car was damaged. W11 demanded payment for both the repair costs and the rental fee, which Mahmoud S. refused to pay. Having heard rumors that Mahmoud S. was “not someone you want to fight with,” W11 decided to avoid getting into a conflict with him by agreeing to cover the rental fee himself and only requiring Mahmoud S. to pay for the repair costs. Despite this prior incident, W11 testified that he had been very surprised to learn that Mahmoud S. had arrested his son.
The Prosecutor then asked about the day his son was arrested. W11 testified that he had decided to remain at home because his mother refused to leave Yarmouk. Later during the day, his wife called him from her brother’s home and said that Mahmoud S. had arrested his son. She told him not to cross the checkpoints, as there was a risk that Mahmoud S. would arrest him if he saw him. At that moment, their son, P7, was at her brother’s home and felt really anxious. W11 then called Mahmoud S. and they had a fight on the phone and cursed at each other. W11 testified that he did not remember exactly what Mahmoud S. said during the phone call. The Prosecutor referred to earlier investigations, in which he had stated Mahmoud S. said that no one in his family would get away. W11 estimated that he stayed in Yarmouk until early May 2014, and then he was arrested and imprisoned for three years. The Prosecutor did not ask specific details about the imprisonment, as the testimony focused on the detainment of his son, but W11 testified he faced torture.
W11 further testified that a couple of years after he left Syria, while he was in [redacted location], Mahmoud S. contacted him and threatened him. Later, while in [redacted location], W11 found out through the internet that he was on the wanted-list in Syria.
The Plaintiff’s Counsel Questioning of W11
The Plaintiff's Counsel once again asked how the arrest affected P7, to which W11 replied that it completely changed his mental wellbeing, making him more aggressive the following years after.
The Defense’s Counsel Questioning of W11
The Defense asked for clarification regarding where W11 got the call from Mahmoud S. To this question, W11 reiterated that he was located in [redacted location] when he got the [redacted information] call, and in [redacted location] when he looked up if he was wanted in Syria.
The proceedings were adjourned at 3:15 PM.
The next hearing will take place on January 15, 2026, at 9:00 AM.
Day 31 – January 15, 2026
Today’s proceedings began at 9:05 AM with the Prosecution asking [redacted name], W12, introductory questions on his background. W12 replied that he was from Syria, born in Yarmouk camp in Damascus and also lived in Yarmouk.
The Prosecutor began by questioning W12 about a roadblock located near Yarmouk. W12 testified that there was a roadblock outside a mosque that was manned by several pro-regime groups, including the Anti-Terrorism Department, the Area Department, and Palestine Branch affiliated with the General Command (GC) and “Falastin Hurra’’ [short for “Haraket Falastin Hurra”, i.e. Free Palestine Movement (FPM)] W12 testified that he believed Falastin Hurra consisted of criminals who followed the orders of the regime.
When asked how he identified the groups present, W12 testified that he personally recognized several individuals because they came from the same camp as him, including [redacted name], F20, and another individual who was later imprisoned in [redacted location].
The Prosecutor asked whether W12 knew Mahmoud S., and W12 testified that he did, having known him prior to the unrest in Syria. W12 testified that Mahmoud S. [redacted information], went to [redacted information] and [redacted information] a lot and was [redacted information] before the unrest. W12 also recalled that although they came from the same camp, they were not friends. W12 further testified that Mahmoud S. did [redacted information] but later began working with the Palestinian Branch affiliated with the GC.
W12 remembered that following an airstrike, when residents returned to inspect their homes, he saw Mahmoud S. guarding the roadblock outside the mosque on multiple occasions, around 4-5 times. He testified that Mahmoud S. exercised authority at the roadblock and could decide who would be arrested.
W12 further testified about an incident at the roadblock in which he was stopped while carrying food and cigarettes for his brother. He testified that a man confiscated his identification and mobile phone and accused him of being affiliated with a group called the Free Army. According to W12, Mahmoud S. then arrived and asked, “Have you seen this person?”, which led him to understand that Mahmoud S. held decision-making authority. Another individual, [redacted name], F21, checked W12’s information in a register and determined that he was peaceful, after which his belongings were returned. W12 testified that he feared he would have died had he been arrested.
Upon further questioning, W12 recalled that it was unclear to him whom Mahmoud S. was referring to when he asked, “Have you seen this person?”. During the same incident, W12 testified, he was about to be taken into a van, though his account of how this occurred was unclear. While near the van, W12 explained to the Court that he saw two young girls who appeared to be approximately [redacted information] years old and two young boys who appeared to be approximately [redacted information] years old. When the Prosecutor asked whether W12 was certain that he had seen two young boys, highlighting that he had not mentioned during his police interview, W12 confirmed that he was certain. Upon questioning, W12 explained that he was now elderly and suffered from a mild form of Alzheimer’s disease. W12 testified that he did not want to accuse an innocent person and was only describing what he had personally seen.
The Prosecutor then asked whether W12 had seen Mahmoud S. before he was about to enter the van. W12 said that he had not. W12 explained that Mahmoud S. appeared to be “hidden” and that he was surprised when he saw him. W12 testified that Mahmoud S. was surrounded by security personnel, which led him to believe that Mahmoud S. was the person deciding who in the queue would be checked. W12 testified that because Mahmoud S. knew him, Mahmoud S. selected him for inspection.
W12 further testified that Mahmoud S. spoke to one of the young boys in the van and asked, “Have you seen W12?” W12 recalled that the boy answered yes out of fear and pressure. W12 claimed that Mahmoud S. was trying to falsely implicate him.
***
[15-minutes break]
***
After the break, W12 testified that when he came back to the queue, he heard people saying that Mahmoud S. was a murderer, rapist, etc. The Prosecutor referred to the preliminary investigation report, showing that there was a certain difference between what W12 has stated during the police interview and his in-court testimony. During the police questioning, W12 had stated that Mahmoud S. said about his: “yes, this person (W12) has nothing to do with it (...), immediately the other guy, [redacted name], F21, gave me the mobile phone.” This meant, that during trial, W12 testified that a man looked him up on a register to see if he was peaceful or against the regime, but during the police interview, W12 stated that it was Mahmoud S. who said that W12 was peaceful and had nothing to do with the matter. Confronted with this discrepancy, W12 said that he was not sure, and added that when he and Mahmoud S. met in [redacted location], the Accused claimed that he was the one who helped him not to get arrested.
The Prosecutor then questioned W12 about his time in [redacted location]. W12 testified that he arrived in [redacted time] and was contacted by Mahmoud S., who offered him accommodation in a city called [redacted location]. He recalled that they lived together for approximately 15 days, during which Mahmoud S. bragged about arresting and torturing people and referred to himself as “the regime’s man.” W12 testified that he later left [redacted location] after Mahmoud S. attacked him, and he no longer felt safe.
Cross-examination by the Defense Counsel
During the cross-examination, the Defense Counsel asked about whether he was aware of an investigation against Mahmoud S. in Sweden and whether he knew that three individuals had been arrested at the time of his police questioning in [redacted time]. W12 replied that he did not know that three individuals had been arrested and that he believed he was only being questioned about his own experiences. The Defense Counsel then noted that during the police interview, W12 had stated that he was aware of the investigation. W12 acknowledged this discrepancy.
The Defense Counsel further asked whether W12 knew that people relied on media reports regarding events in Syria. W12 explained that he was aware of media coverage but only had access to such media after moving to [redacted location].
Before the end of the session, the Prosecutor added that W12 had been called at the request of Mahmoud S. and informed the Court that another witness, [redacted name], W13, would not testify on January 28, 2026, due to illness. His police interview was audio-recorded only, and further information would be provided.
The proceedings were adjourned at 11:30 AM.
The next trial day will be on January 19, 2026, at 9:00 AM.
___________________________
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