Inside the Mahmoud S. Trial #12: The Wound That Does Not Heal

TRIAL OF Mahmoud S.

Solna District Court – Stockholm, Sweden

Trial Monitoring Summary #12

Hearing Date: January 26 and 27, 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 12^th trial monitoring report details days 35 and 36 of the trial of Mahmoud S. in Stockholm, Sweden. On the first day this week, W3 testified about treating P2 and P3 after the July 2012 shootings, the collapse of medical services in Yarmouk, and the presence of regime‑aligned groups, and the killing of F25. He confirmed that P3 had a severe head injury. P3 later described lasting physical and cognitive impairments and testified that the Accused, a relative of F26, was known in the camp as a regime collaborator.

On the second day this week, W16 testified that he observed the July 2012 demonstration from near the biscuit factory, saw gunfire cause multiple casualties, and recalled that regime‑aligned groups such as the GC and FPM were alleged of the killings triggering the demonstration. He described later encounters at roadblocks where he saw the Accused directing officers against civilians and where he himself was singled out. W16 also recounted being extorted, detained for 90 days in overcrowded and violent conditions, and losing his store after the battles in Yarmouk.

Day 35 – January 26, 2026

Preliminary Remarks by the Court

The hearing started with the Judges informing the parties to the proceedings that Plaintiff [redacted name], P3, residing in [redacted location], was scheduled to be heard today. However, the Judges had specifically asked the [redacted location] authorities not to transport him to the [redacted location] court building for questioning due to potential issues with the technology and the Plaintiff’s health conditions. To facilitate the questioning, the Court decided to conduct the questioning with P3 via his personal phone. However, the Plaintiff received the wrong instruction to appear at the [redacted location] court, delaying the questioning. The Judges added that the questioning will therefore take place in the afternoon from his home and online. Instead, the Court started the morning by hearing witness [redacted name], W3, located in [redacted location].

The Prosecutor’s Questioning of W3

The Prosecutor began questioning the witness. W3 testified that he was born in [redacted time] and grew up in the Yarmouk camp, but when his house was finished in [redacted location], he moved there in [redacted time]. He worked as a [redacted information] in Syria, as a [redacted information] and was the head of the [redacted information]. During [redacted time], he also worked at other places, such as [redacted information], and he also had his own clinic in Yarmouk. W3 further described that he left Syria sometime in [redacted time] because he was exposed to direct threats from the Intelligence Services. He was accused of having helped terrorist organizations through medical assistance. He finally managed to leave Damascus by paying money to get his name removed from border control lists.

The Prosecutor then examined him regarding his knowledge of the demonstration on July 13, 2012. W3 said that it was a Friday, which is a holiday in Syria, and that he was at home in [redacted location]. After Friday prayers around 1:30 or 2 PM, he received a call from [redacted information] Hospital that he had to come in because several people were injured. He explained that once he arrived, he went straight to the operating room where his brother's friend [redacted name], P2 had been shot in the stomach and needed stomach surgery. According to the witness, there was a lot of noise outside, but he remained in the hospital until the evening and knew nothing about the demonstration. He had heard from others afterwards that those who shot that day were Shabiha, and he added that it was usually either Shabiha or the Intelligence Services. The Prosecutor then asked if the witness recognized any other injured patient, to which W3 replied that a relative was there with a gunshot wound to the head, which he later confirmed was P3. According to W3, they did not have a neurology department at the hospital, therefore they only gave P3 emergency assistance and then sent him to another hospital with specialist care. The Prosecutor then asked if there was a risk in transporting injured patients, whereupon W3 explained that they had to be careful as the Intelligence Services asked lots of questions at the time about which patients had come in and that there was a risk of being arrested if they were transported.

The Prosecutor then asked the witness if they had any ambulances at the hospital and if he knew any ambulance drivers. W3 replied that they did not have their own ambulance trucks, but that they sometimes had to borrow from the state, the Syrian Crescent and the Fayez Halawa Hospital, which had one. The witness recalled that one ambulance driver he knew of - yet not personally – was [redacted name], F14, because he sometimes performed surgeries in Fayez Halawa hospital.

W3 then testified about the state of the Yarmouk camp and said that during this period the presence of the regime decreased and the presence of opposition groups increased. The Prosecutor wondered if that changed after the aerial bombing and W3 described that the day after the bombing, almost everyone left the camp, opposition forces entered and took control of the camp. He further said that the line of confrontation was in the front of the camp and that the state set up a checkpoint there a few days after the aerial bombing. The Prosecutor wondered what the aerial bombing meant to him and W3 said that the hospital was located near the Abdul Qadir Mosque that was bombed, therefore the hospital was also damaged and put completely out of function. When he had to perform surgeries, he did so in Damascus.

[15-minute break]  

The Prosecutor then inquired about the northern checkpoint in Yarmouk more specifically, and wondered if the witness at any point returned to Yarmouk after the aerial bombing. W3 said he only returned on one occasion with his brother to check on the hospital and the neighborhood where his parents lived. According to him, it was only during that period that cars were allowed to enter and that there were 4-5 people at the checkpoint wearing uniforms and weapons, but that he did not know who they belonged to. He had heard from others that they belonged to the Intelligence Services and the General Command (GC).

The Prosecutor then asked what FPM was and W3 replied that it was an armed group formed by [redacted name], F5 and that [redacted name], F8 was responsible for the military part and that they cooperated with the Intelligence Services. The Prosecutor also asked if he knew [redacted name], F19, whereupon W3 explained that it was a businessman from the camp who had contact with the Palestine Branch and had strong relations with the Intelligence Services. W3 further described that that he paid money to F19 (through F19's relative) to hand over to the Intelligence Services to get out of Syria. W3 said that he believes that F19 had a mediating role between the Intelligence Services and the opposition, but that he was then arrested by the opposition and later released by ransom. Then W3 testified that he had heard that his friend [redacted name], F25, was murdered in his home because they said that he had let protesters come to his place.

The Plaintiff's Counsel´s Questioning of W3

The Plaintiff's Counsel then asked questions about the injuries P2 and P3 had suffered from. W3 testified that during P2's operation they removed part of the intestine due to the gunshot wound in the stomach and since the circumstances did not allow them to keep patients for a longer period, P2 had to be cared for at home to a large extent. W3 believed that it took several months for him to recover. The witness then described that they performed emergency measures on P3, who was shot in the head and was unconscious, but he had no knowledge of his condition afterwards.

[180-minute break] 

The Prosecutor’s Questioning of P3

Following an extended break for the Plaintiff, P3, to arrive, the Prosecutor began by asking him to give details on his personal background. P3 said he believes he was born in [redacted time], testified that he lived in Yarmouk and that he was a [redacted information] student at the time. The Prosecutor asked him to explain what had happened to him. P3 said that he does not remember anything from that day but that when he woke up, he had lost the ability to speak and he was unable to speak for six months from then. The Prosecutors wondered if he knew who Mahmoud S. was. According to the Plaintiff, he was a person from whom the whole world has suffered; from his work. P3 also said that he was the brother of his uncle's wife, but that the whole family has cut off contact with him. 

The Plaintiff's Counsel´s Questioning of P3

The Plaintiff's Counsel wanted to hear what problems and injuries P3 has had due to the gunshot wound. P3 explained that he still had difficulty finding the words, difficulty with numbers and computer, and constant headache since then. He was injured on the left side of his head; his right hand was still paralyzed and also parts of the right side of his body. The Plaintiff's Counsel asked P3, based on the fact that she was visiting him, if a correct description of his condition was that he could only walk short distances and drag one foot with the other. P3 confirmed that this was true. When he was then asked what his mental state was, P3 replied "just shit" and that he was depressed and isolated.

The Prosecutor's Supplementary Questions of P3

The Prosecutor then read from a questioning that had been conducted by the Swedish police with the Plaintiff about a year ago in [redacted location]. P3 had said in that interview that Mahmoud S. was also called [redacted information] and that he was an informant for the regime, which he knew because his uncle's wife told him so. When the Prosecutor asked if this was true, P3 confirmed and added that it was not only his uncle's wife, but that the whole camp knew that he was a collaborator. The Plaintiff also made it clear that he had never met him.

The Plaintiff´s Counsel´s Supplementary Questions of P3

The Plaintiff's Counsel then asked if P3 had been told where in Yarmouk he was when he was shot during the demonstration, and the Plaintiff replied that he was at [redacted information] stop, which is close to the biscuit factory.

The Defense’s Questioning of P3

The Defense Counsel then began by asking P3 what his uncle's wife's name was, to which the Plaintiff replied – [redacted name], F26. Then the Defense read out the interview transcript which had been held P3 on [redacted time], in which P3 stated that the protesters had objects that could be used as weapons and that some of them carried Russian weapons, but only as protection in case of an attack on them. P3 confirmed that it was very possible that what he had said earlier was true. Upon questioning whether P3 had social media, P3 explained that he does not use social media today, but has had it before. The Defense also asked if he could have seen information that had been spread about Yarmouk and Syria online, but P3 explained that he was not interested in it after the injury. Finally, the Defense asked if he had seen pictures of Mahmoud S. According to P3, he had seen a picture of him in the [redacted location] police station.

The proceedings were adjourned at 3:45 PM.

The next hearing will take place on January 27, 2026, at 9:00 AM.

Day 36 – January 27, 2026

Proceedings began with the Prosecution asking the witness of today, [redacted name], W16 for his personal details. W16 said that he was born in [redacted location] in [redacted time], fleeing to Yarmouk in [redacted time]. W16 left Yarmouk in [redacted time] following the airstrike on December 16, 2012. While W16 lived in Yarmouk, he owned a store that sold [redacted information].

The Prosecutor began by questioning W16 regarding whether he had witnessed the demonstration that occurred in July 2012. W16 testified that he was not part of the demonstration but observed it from the sidelines. When asked by the Prosecutor about the purpose of the demonstration, W16 testified that it was initiated in response to the killing of some Palestinian youths who were a part of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). He testified that the regime, specifically the General Command (GC) and the Free Palestine Movement (FPM), were accused of committing these murders.

[20-minute break] 

W16 testified that a group opposing the regime, known as the Free Army, returned fire to protect the demonstrators. W16 clarified that this counteraction occurred on July 13, however W16 only heard about it and did not witness it personally, as he had already fled the scene. He could not recall who informed him of this incident. W16 testified that he was initially standing at a factory, referred to as the "biscuit factory," while observing the demonstration when gunfire began targeting the factory. He then fled to a side street. W16 recalled that he observed many casualties during the demonstration. Passing by the Palestinian Hospital, he saw numerous injured individuals who had been shot. W16 recalled that he observed the demonstration for approximately 10–15 minutes before the intense shooting at the biscuit factory commenced. He could not remember the exact number of casualties.

[10-minute break] 

The Prosecutor then questioned W16 regarding roadblocks and his observations of Mahmoud S. W16 testified that he saw Mahmoud S. at a roadblock two or three times. He identified Mahmoud S. based on previous encounters, though they had no personal relationship. W16 recounted a 2012 incident when Mahmoud S., who appeared abnormally intoxicated and was with a woman, blocked his car. This led another man in the car to attempt to confront Mahmoud S. W16 and an elderly man intervened by separating them. W16 testified that Mahmoud S. and the other man only pushed each other and did not engage in physical violence. After the elderly man spoke to Mahmoud S., he allowed them to pass. Following this encounter, W16 testified that he became fearful of passing that roadblock. He added that this incident happened after the fall of Yarmouk camp.

W16 further testified that he witnessed a man being beaten at a roadblock near Al-Bashir Mosque by Mahmoud S. and other pro-regime officers. W16 testified that Mahmoud S. had pointed out the man, and that the officers, but not Mahmoud S., dragged him to a van and beat him with his own fan that he had. The man began to bleed, and W16 left the area because he did not feel safe. The Prosecutor acknowledged a discrepancy with what W16 said in court and during the police questioning. In the police interview, W16 had stated that Mahmoud S. had not beaten the man. W16 then confirmed this and said the statement was correct; W16 only meant that Mahmoud S. had pointed out the individual, and the other officers conducted the beating.

***

[60-minute break] 

***

W16 then testified that he was also pointed out by Mahmoud S. at a roadblock near Yarmouk. He suspected this was related to the previous incident where Mahmoud S. had blocked his friend’s car. W16 testified that he feared he would be arrested or killed. When asked why Mahmoud S. was stationed at the roadblock, W16 testified that it was because Mahmoud S. liked to be famous.

Upon further questioning, W16 explained that in July 2013, due to battles in Yarmouk, he was forced to close his store, which contained [redacted information]. W16 testified that he contacted guards at a nearby road junction seeking permission to move his inventory to a safer location. The guards said that W16 could move his inventory, but he had to pay them $15,000 first, which W16 did. W16 then testified that the guards asked him for more money, which he did not have. W16 further recalled that this resulted in his arrest on [redacted time], 2013, lasting 90 days. His family, who had moved to [redacted location], did not know his whereabouts, and his brothers had to pay a substantial sum to secure his release. W16 testified that he was confined in a small room with 160 individuals. Asked about the conditions, he said that it was overcrowded and fatalities occurred. He recalled that dead bodies were left among the living detainees. W16 also testified that he endured torture during his arrest. The Prosecutor then concluded her questioning.

Cross-examination by the Defense Counsel

During the cross-examination, the Defense Counsel questioned W16 regarding the timing of being singled out by Mahmoud S., to which W16 testified it occurred in [redacted time] 2013, though he was uncertain. W16 confirmed that the incident took place during daytime hours, between 12:00 and 1:00 PM. W16 testified that Mahmoud S. was dressed in [redacted information], though he later recalled that Mahmoud S. may have worn a [redacted information]. The Defense Counsel also inquired whether W16 used social media platforms such as TikTok or Facebook, and W16 testified that he did and received information about events in Yarmouk through these channels. The Defense Counsel concluded the cross-examination.

The proceedings were adjourned at 2:18 PM.

The next hearing will take place on February 2, 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