Inside the Mahmoud S. Trial #16: (Explaining) Inconsistencies
TRIAL OF MAHMOUD S.
Solna District Court – Stockholm, Sweden
Trial Monitoring Summary #16
Hearing Date: March 2, 3, and 5, 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 16th trial monitoring report details days 46, 47, and 48 of the trial of Mahmoud S. in Stockholm, Sweden. This week, a new witness, W27, testified about killings, arrests, and violent incidents in the camp during the siege period, including the loss of family members and encounters with armed actors at demonstrations and checkpoints, but her account contained notable confusion and inconsistencies that were challenged by the Defense. Also, an expert witness, E1, from SCM was heard and described SCM’s methodology for investigating the FPM militia and its command structure, emphasizing reliance on witness testimony and open‑source material amid acknowledged limitations.
On day three of the trial week, three expert witnesses testified, E2, E3, and E4: E2 outlined the structure, activities, and coordination of pro‑government militias in Yarmouk during 2011–2012, including arrests, detention practices, and blurred lines between armed groups, while emphasizing careful source evaluation. E3 and E4, two psychologists then explained how traumatic memory works, highlighting that emotionally charged events are often retained over time but may be fragmented, temporally disordered, or influenced by stress, later information, and source confusion.
Day 46 – March 2, 2026
[SJAC was unable to monitor today’s trial day.]
The next trial day will be on March 3, 2026, at 9:00 AM.
Day 47 – March 3, 2026
Today, a new witness appeared before the Court. The Prosecution started its questioning of [redacted name], W27, who was born in [redacted time] and moved to Yarmouk around [redacted time]. During the years 2011-2012, she lived in [redacted name] street. She left Yarmouk in connection with the siege in December 2012.
W27 has four children. Her eldest son [redacted name], F42, was arrested and disappeared. At first, W27 testified that this was in 2014 but changed it to [redacted time], 2013 [note: W27 was confused about several dates and years during today’s hearing]. W27 had heard that he was murdered. W27’s other son, [redacted name], F43, was murdered on [redacted time], 2012, during an altercation between the General Command and the Palestine Liberation Army in Syria. He was shot three times on Al-Orouba street. W27’s brother [redacted name], F44, was arrested by the General Command around the end of 2014 or beginning of 2015. The Prosecution asked if [redacted name], F8, had anything to do with it. W27 testified that she visited her brother where he was held, in the Al Qa’a buildings, and he had told her that F8 was the one that had had him arrested. Her brother was, together with two other men, kept in a room with bloodstained walls. She testified that chains hung from the ceiling and mattresses lay on the floor. Because W27 is cousin of F8, she was permitted to see her brother.
W27 explained that she and F8 used to be very close but became “enemies” during the conflict. W27 testified about F8 having an office on Fifteen street from around 2010, which was later moved to Mazzeh. W27 visited F8 at his office in Mazzeh after her son’s, F42’s, disappearance. She testified to seeing “Jumbas”, D., S. (the Accused), [redacted name], F29, and [redacted name], F30, there. The Prosecution asked about D. [Moafak D.]. W27 testified that she knew who he was due to him overseeing the Al Bashir checkpoint, but she had not seen him around the camp. The Prosecution also asked about Jumbas, to which W27 testified that he was the husband of the brother’s daughter, but she did not know him. The Prosecution asked about S. According to W27’s testimony, she did not know him. She had, however, seen him masked by the checkpoint in early 2013, where he asked another man if W27 was to be arrested, but the other man replied “no, she is a cousin of F8.” He was wearing a black T-shirt, an ammunition vest, and a mask. Before this encounter, she had only seen him once, at a demonstration, where she learned his name. The Prosecution asked how W27 could know that it was the Accused, to which she testified that he stood out due to being thin and tall; he was called “the giraffe.” W27 further testified that she had seen the Accused together with F8, driving a car. She had also seen him by the end of 2015 by the Al Jazeera checkpoint where he physically abused a mother and child. W27 had also met the Accused at F8’s office in Mazzeh once.
***
[15-minutes-break]
***
The Prosecution asked if W27 knew what the Accused did for work in the camp, to which she testified that he wrote reports for the General Command. Upon questioning by the Prosecution, W27 testified to not knowing [redacted name], F6, the brother of the Accused.
The Prosecution asked W27 to look at photos. In the first photo, W27 pointed out F8, and said that she recognized the other people, but did not know them. She said that one might be the Accused’s brother, because he looked similar to the Accused. In the second and third photos, W27 testified to not knowing anyone, but repeated that one might be the Accused’s brother. In the fourth photo, W27 testified that the people were [redacted name], F31, whom she knew, and the Accused. The Prosecution asked if F31 was connected to F8 to which W27 testified that she had seen him at F8’s office in Mazzeh.
The Prosecution asked about the large demonstration. W27 testified that she saw the Accused there and also that knew a young boy was killed. W27’s children participated in the demonstration, and because of this she walked behind the demonstrators to keep watch. W27 saw the demonstration by the Palestine roundabout. She testified to seeing people from the General Command, wearing civil clothes. She recognized the Accused and Jumbas, but could not remember anyone else. She was at a 1-2 meters distance, approximately. When the shooting started, W27 fled, together with the demonstrators, into the alleys, where they were followed by the shooters. W27 recalled this being the first time she saw the Accused, as he followed them into the alley shooting, and some demonstrators told her who he was. W27 further testified that [redacted name], F2, a friend of her sons, was killed during the demonstration.
***
[15-minutes-break]
***
The Prosecution asked again about the time W27 was leaving the camp through the checkpoint. W27 testified that she was by the checkpoint on her way out of the camp, carrying bags. The Accused, masked, approached her. He was tasked with pointing out people and asked another person at the checkpoint if they should take her. W27 was afraid, but the other person replied that they should not, as she was F8’s cousin. W27 testified that she knew the person wearing the mask was the Accused because other people had told her that the Accused was masked and had people arrested. She recognized him, and further testified that there only was one masked person and that she had only seen him on this occasion.
Questioning by the Defense
The Defense asked about W27’s opinion of F8 to which she testified that she believes him to be a criminal and that everyone in his gang is a criminal.
The Defense asked if it was correct that W27’s son disappeared on [redacted time], 2014, to which she testified that that is correct.
W27 highlighted that it was her perception today that the Accused was the masked man, that the Accused was at the demonstration, and that she knew what he looked like. W27 had only heard about the Accused’s brother, F6, but had never seen him. She recognized him in the photos because he looked similar to the Accused.
The Defense submitted that the information W27 had given today did not correspond to what she had stated in the police interviews on [redacted time], and [redacted time]. In the first interview, she did not mention the Accused in regard to the demonstration. The Defense asked why this was, to which W27 testified that the interview concerned Jumbas, not the Accused. In the first interview, the Accused was not mentioned in relation to the checkpoint either. The Defense further submitted that W27 had stated that Mahmoud A. [one of the five Accused in the trial of Jihad et al. in Koblenz, Germany.] was masked by the checkpoint and was tasked with pointing out people.
The Defense showed a photo and submitted that W27, in one of the police interviews, had pointed out the Accused in this photo which shows Mahmoud A. Today in court, W27 confirmed that probably it was Mahmoud A. in the photo.
The Defense further submitted that W27 may have confused the Accused with D. [Moafak D.]. The Defense also submitted that it was clear that W27 was not able to point out the Accused and that she had confused him with his brother, F6, all along. The Defense argued that it was F6 who had been the one shooting into the alleys during the demonstration. W27 did not believe this was correct. During the police interview on [redacted time], W27 had not identified the Accused in a photo that was showing him. The Defense asked if W27 might have been mistaken this whole time, to which she replied that she did not know.
The Defense also stressed that, in interviews with the Swedish police, W27 had stated that the Accused was wearing a mask at the demonstration, but now she said that he was unmasked. It also highlighted that in her testimony about the car above, W27 might have confused the Accused with someone else.
The witness was then dismissed, and a lunch break issued.
***
[75-minutes-break]
After the break, a new witness was heard. [Redacted name], E1, is an expert witness working at the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM).
Questioning by the Prosecution
E1 was born in [redacted time] in Syria. He was arrested at the beginning of the revolution and sentenced to five years in prison. In [redacted time], he left Syria for [redacted location], and arrived in [redacted location] in [redacted time]. He did not have a connection to Yarmouk, but was from the Damascus region.
While currently a volunteer for SCM, before, he was a director for the information unit and led the work with making contact, collection of witness testimonies, victims, and analysis of hierarchies of those directly responsible for crimes committed.
The Prosecution had asked SCM to find information because SCM has been investigating the FPM. The Prosecution showed a report about FPM from SCM to the Court. E1 then testified about how they gathered information: through contacts and witness testimonies from people both in and outside Syria. There were around 12-13 people that were willing to cooperate. The Prosecution also showed a report about F8.
***
[15-minutes-break]
***
The Prosecution then also presented a report about the order of command within the FPM, and asked about the names mentioned. E1 testified that they do not put down a name if they are not at least 80-85% sure that it is correct. E1 noted that SCM did not have any deeper knowledge of FPM before the request from the Prosecution. E1 also testified that they only knew some names.
Questioning by the Defense
The Defense then questioned the expert witness. According to E1, he participated in the Syrian revolution in 2011. He worked for the Syrian Military Intelligence Services until 2011, and leaked information to the revolutionaries. He could be called an activist. E1 was in [redacted location] when he started working with SCM. He does not have a European education. He has experience from investigational work and information gathering from the Assad regime, E1 testified. During his time in prison, E1 was held in the infamous Sednaya prison for 6 months until he was bought out by his family. He described his time as very difficult and the circumstances as inhumane. Upon questioning, E1 testified that most people that give information to SCM are activists similar to himself.
The Defense then asked about E1’s description of the “criminal militia.” E1 could not recall that he had used that description, but he confirmed that he talked about a militia that had bombed, arrested, and destroyed, and thus was criminal.
E1 had not read any document that showed the structure of FPM. Neither had he reviewed information from the FPM website older than from 2015/16. He had, however, reviewed publications on the internet about the formation of FPM, as well as witness testimonies.
The Defense had no further questions, and the witness was dismissed.
The proceedings were adjourned at 4:05 PM
The next hearing will take place on March 5, at 9:00 AM.
Day 48 – March 5, 2026
Questioning of three expert witnesses: [redacted name], E2, [redacted name], E3, and [redacted name], E4
E2 appeared before the Court via video call. Initially, his testimony was interpreted from German. However, due to problems with the interpreter, the questioning continued in English instead. Both the witness and the Court spoke English.
E2 explained that he has a background in Islamic Studies and a doctorate from Freie Universität Berlin. During his studies, E2 lived in Syria for two years and has also studied the Arabic language. He works at the German “Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik”, advises the German Bundestag about issues related to foreign and security policy, and has worked in the Bundeskanzleramt [German Chancellor’s Office] with intelligence against international terrorism for four years.
E2 was questioned by the Prosecutor about his statements and evidence detailed in a report about the FPM that he prepared with the “Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik” for the German Prosecution Office during the trial of Moafak D. E2 briefly told the Court about the history of the groups PFLP-GC and FPM, which he said were two of the three most important movements fighting for the Syrian government in Yarmouk in 2012. The Al-Aqsa Shield was established in 2012 and led by F8. E2 testified that for an outsider, sometimes it was unclear whether a person fought for the GC or the FPM, and that there were cases of persons fighting for both groups. He explained that the Al-Aqsa Shield was likely supported and coordinated by the Airforce Intelligence. The Prosecutor asked if members in the Al-Aqsa Shield had other tasks than being fighters. E2 replied that there was no evidence of other tasks performed by members of the military group. The Prosecutor showed E2 a picture of a group of persons that had been presented to the Court before in the trial, and E2 recognized the group FPM as well as Moafak D. and the creator of the group . The Prosecutor then asked about the people's committees (Lijan sha'biya), and E2 explained that after a loss of personnel, these committees were created to mobilize voluntary persons to contribute to militias, starting in 2011. E2 described that these people received moderate payments, were allowed to rob houses, and had a specific type of impunity.
The Prosecutor asked E2 about the events on June 6, 2011. E2 carefully described the events that started when some young protesters were shot while trying to climb a border fence to the Golan, which then led to the demonstration that resulted in open fire. He explained that a similar incident occurred on another occasion after a Friday prayer, when a demonstration after a kidnapping of PLA-recruits in Syria resulted in shootings and fighting. E2 described the conflict situation in Yarmouk during 2011 and 2012, and explained that many people fled the area and that those who stayed were mostly rebels and the weakest part of the population which included the sick, old, and poor. The Prosecutor asked about the arrest of civilians in 2011-2012, and E2 described a well-organized structure where people who had participated in demonstrations were arrested at checkpoints, where only suspicion was sufficient for arrest. They were then brought to detention centers where they were beaten and tortured, and either remained there, died or were brought to a normal jail. E2 testified that, according to reports, the same procedure also happened at checkpoints in Yarmouk specifically. E2 confirmed that the GC owned detention centers.
The Defense questioned E2, and he described the presence of rebels and opposition groups infiltrating Yarmouk in 2012 and what effects it had on the security situation and the fighting that broke out. He said that both sides were accusing each other of different crimes and emphasized the need to crosscheck every piece of information but assured the Court that he had differentiated clearly in his report when he was sure about some facts and when not.
***
[20-minute break]
***
After the break, [redacted name], E3, appeared before the Court and was questioned by the Prosecutor about how memories of traumatic events work. E3 is a psychologist and works at the Swedish Red Cross treatment support for war victims. She treats refugees suffering from PTSD following war, torture, and flight. E3 defined PTSD and explained that it can affect how persons describe their traumatic memories. She witnessed that she believed that people never forget traumatic memories, but that depending on treatment the memories can affect persons in different ways. She explained that memories that have strong emotional effects stay, and even if one tries to avoid the memories, they are not forgotten. E3 explained that the symptoms of PDTS are re-experience of trauma, avoidance of triggers, hyper reactions, and effects on cognition and mood.
The Prosecutor asked what problems memories can cause when questioning witnesses. E3 explained that people may experience difficulties in keeping a common thread when describing the events, and that one may lose parts of the story and, if being heard on different occasions, details in the memories may switch places. One may also experience anxiety, dissociation, and other emotional reactions. In long term traumatic situations, one may develop a tunnel-perspective and can therefore mix up non-essential details. E3 explained that it is difficult to tell if memories are affected when receiving information from others about the events but testified that the worst memories that are emotionally loaded are not as affected by new information and stick longer. She explained that memories are generally associative, and that one may remember new details when delving into a memory.
The Plaintiff´s Counsel asked E3 to clarify if how someone is feeling that specific day may affect whether a person shares more or less details of events. E3 testified that it differs and that people may be able to handle memories better or worse depending on the occasion.
The Defense asked E3 about a concept of source confusion that a psychologist called Elisabet Loftus has established. E3 testified that she did not know enough about that concept to tell, but reminded the Court that Loftus does not deal with traumatic memories. E3 explained that memories of sporadic events stick less than lasting events, and when fear is involved, the memories stick more.
***
[60-minute-break]
***
After lunch, [redacted name], E4, also testified as an expert witness about how memories of traumatic experiences work before the Court. She is Professor of psychology at Stockholm University, and her knowledge on the topic rests on empiric and experimental evidence. She explained that the memories one remembers best are those that are connected to emotional events, rather than events in the periphery that one remembers less well. Memories of very emotional experiences last a long time. E4 explained that forgetting usually occurs within nine hours after events happen. Yet, after these nine hours, time does not have as much effect on the memories. She explained that there is a risk of memories being contaminated if one hears, reads, or sees something about it, but that people tend to remember traumatic events better than neutral ones. E4 explained that it may be difficult to describe traumatic events in a correct temporal order.
The Defense Counsel questioned E4 about what happens with memories years after the events if one receives news about accused offenders. E4 referenced a study where it was shown that persons who had seen their offender in a movie could point them out later easier, but that even without having seen the movie, many victims could identify the offender. She explained that because of human evolution, we remember human faces well. The Defense Counsel asked about Elisabet Loftus' research on false accusations and source confusion. E4 explained that witnesses’ memories of events may be affected if they talk to other witnesses about their experiences. She explained that source confusion occurs when one mixes up one's own experiences with what others have seen and said. She said that widespread accusations on social media may affect memories.
The proceedings were adjourned at 2:35 PM.
The next trial day will be on March 9, 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