Inside the Mahmoud S. Trial #17: Fabricating Facts
TRIAL OF MAHMOUD S.
Solna District Court – Stockholm, Sweden
Trial Monitoring Summary #17
Hearing Date: March 9 and 10, 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 17th trial monitoring report details days 49 and 50 of the trial of Mahmoud S. in Stockholm, Sweden. On the first day this week, the Court heard testimony from three witnesses, W28, W29, and W30, all of whom stated they knew the Accused through neighborhood or business contacts in Yarmouk and had no close personal or political discussions with him. All witnesses testified that, during the time they lived in Yarmouk, they never saw the Accused armed, in uniform, or participating in people’s committees or militia groups, and were unaware of his political affiliations. The questioning by the Prosecutor addressed demonstrations, later contact, and inconsistencies in dates, but the witnesses maintained that their knowledge of the Accused was limited and largely based on everyday interactions.
On the second day this week, the Court conducted a complementary interrogation of the Accused, during which the Prosecution addressed alleged attempts to influence witnesses, clarified procedural issues regarding prior statements, and questioned the Accused about his purported affiliations, presence at checkpoints, and relationships with various individuals cited by witnesses. The Accused consistently denied involvement with armed groups, Security Services, or intimidation, rejected multiple witness allegations as false or fabricated, and provided alternative explanations for his knowledge of events and people in Yarmouk. The Defense concluded by briefly confirming the existence of opposing familial and ideological blocs mentioned during questioning.
Day 49 – March 9, 2026
Examination of the first witness by the Defense Counsel
The proceedings began at 9:05 AM with testimony from witness [redacted name], W28, who appeared via video link from [redacted location]. The witness testified that he was born and raised in Yarmouk Camp, where he worked as a [redacted information] until leaving after an airstrike in December 2012. He testified that he knew Mahmoud S. as a neighbor and jeweler, as S. worked in his brother’s gold shop, and that they occasionally conducted business together but did not have a personal relationship. When asked whether he met S. privately, the witness testified that he did not, explaining that they had different interests and a significant age difference. He testified that the Accused’s interests included partying, drinking alcohol, and spending time with women.
The Defense Counsel then talked about the developments in Syria beginning in 2011, noting that the situation had become increasingly unstable and that various people’s committees had emerged, with some individuals joining armed groups. When asked about this, the witness testified that war had created a state of anarchy, leading people to form armed people’s committees. He explained that these developments affected the area generally, but not him personally, as he remained outside those activities. The witness testified that the purpose of these committees was to protect Yarmouk Camp.
The Defense Counsel asked whether the Accused had shown sympathy for either the opposition or the regime. The witness testified that he did not know S.’s political position after the witness left Yarmouk in December 2012. When asked whether Mahmoud S. had been a member of any people’s committee or militia group, and whether he had ever seen M.S. armed, the witness testified that, to his knowledge, M.S. had not been a member of any such group while the witness still lived in Yarmouk. He further testified that he had never seen S. armed.
The Defense Counsel concluded the questioning.
Examination of the first witness by the Prosecutor
The Prosecutor began her examination by asking about a demonstration that happened in Palestine Street during which multiple demonstrators were reportedly killed. The witness testified that he had only heard of the demonstration on Palestine Street and had no direct knowledge of it. He further testified that he did not know whether anyone had been arrested in connection with the demonstration. Regarding later contact with Mahmoud S., the witness testified that S. had called him after the Accused had moved to Sweden, and that they occasionally discussed events in Yarmouk. The witness testified that S. was unhappy about what had happened in Yarmouk. The witness further testified that he did not know whether S. was pro-regime.
Finally, the Prosecutor asked the witness what he based his knowledge on when he said that Mahmoud S. had not been part of any people’s committee or militia groups. The witness testified that he had never seen S. armed or wearing a military uniform, and that their relationship had been limited to business dealings.
The examination of the witness then concluded, and the next witness was called to enter the courtroom.
Examination of the second witness by the Defense Counsel
At 10:30 AM, the proceedings resumed with testimony from witness [redacted name], W29, who appeared via video link. The witness testified that he was born and raised in Yarmouk and left the camp in December [redacted time] immediately after the airstrike. He testified that he owned a [redacted information] in Yarmouk. When asked about his relationship with Mahmoud S., the witness testified that they had a friendly relationship. S. would regularly [redacted information] from the witness, and they would see each other daily and sometimes drink tea together in the morning. In response to questions about the witness’s family, he testified that 14 members of his family had been arrested by the regime.
The witness further testified that he and S. never discussed political views, explaining that people did not dare speak openly about such matters. When asked whether he had ever seen S. armed or wearing a military uniform, the witness testified that he had not.
Then the Defense asked the witness if the Accused had been in any people's committee or militia groups. The witness testified that during the time he still lived in Yarmouk he swears to God that S. had not joined any people's committee or militia groups. This was because S. had no time for that. He worked at his brother's gold shop and got drunk. The witness further testified that he does not know if Mahmoud S. joined an armed group after he left. The Defense further asked the witness if there was a roadblock in Yarmouk. The witness testified that there was one that the opposition was guarding because the regime had no presence there at that time. The Defense Counsel concluded the questioning.
Examination of the second witness by the Prosecutor
The Prosecutor began her examination by asking when W29 last spoke to Mahmoud S. The witness testified that it was in December. The Prosecutor noted that the witness had previously told the police that the last contact occurred between July and August. The witness then testified that he had difficulty remembering due to his age ([redacted information]) and health and acknowledged that it was likely their last contact had occurred during the summer.
Finally, the Prosecutor asked the witness if he had had contact with Mahmoud S. after moving from Yarmouk. The witness recalled that they had spoken on the phone from time to time. Mahmoud S. recommended the witness to move to Sweden because it is a good country. When asked if the witness and the Accused talked about the situation in Yarmouk, the witness testified that the only thing they said was “may God curse both sides for making us leave our homes.”
The examination of the witness concluded at 11:26 AM.
Examination of the third witness by the Defense Counsel
The witness could not be present. The Court issued a lunch break.
***
[120-minutes-break]
Examination of the fourth witness by the Defense Counsel:
The proceedings resumed at 1:37 PM with testimony from witness [redacted name], W30, via video link. Before the Defense Counsel could ask a question, the witness claimed that he had not seen anything. The Judge told the witness to wait for a question and answer it if he can. The Defense began asking the witness when he left Yarmouk and where he was born. The witness testified that he lived in Yarmouk until December [redacted time], when he left Syria. He further testified that he was born in [redacted location], Yarmouk.
When asked how he knew Mahmoud S., the witness testified that they were neighbors, but that they did not have a personal relationship due to an age difference of eight to ten years. The witness testified that he would occasionally see Mahmoud S. on Loubia Street, where S. worked in his brother’s gold shop.
The witness further testified that S. had a “different personality” and was from a different generation. By “different personality,” the witness meant that S. drank alcohol frequently and liked to party, which he said was noticeable from S.’s breath and eyes. The witness testified that, during the time he remained in Yarmouk, he had never seen Mahmoud S. in military uniform, armed, or participating in a people’s committee or any similar groups. He also testified that he had never seen S. associated with a group referred to as the “Sa’ed group.” However, the witness testified that, long after leaving Yarmouk, he saw a Facebook post depicting S. in military uniform.
The Defense Counsel concluded their questioning at that point.
Examination of the fourth witness by the Prosecutor
The Prosecutor began her examination by asking when W30 last saw Mahmoud S. The witness testified that he last saw him outside his brother’s gold shop. He explained that, as conditions deteriorated in the camp, he went out less frequently because it had become dangerous due to the unrest.
The proceedings were adjourned at 2:40 PM.
The next hearing will take place on March 10, 2026, at 9:00 AM.
Day 50 – March 10, 2026
Today, the Court turned to the Accused for a complementary interrogation.
The Prosecutor began by referring to prior statements on page 73 where the Defense Counsel claimed impact of investigation based on online chats. The Prosecutor presented the supplementary investigation protocol 4, page 16, which showed the full extent of chat where attempts were made to interfere with the investigation by [redacted name], F45, with the aim of securing the acquittal of the Accused, who was in detention. F45 told the Accused to say that he did not witness any fighting, but saw [redacted name], F32, with a weapon at a funeral.
The Prosecutor continued to supplementary investigation protocol 8, referring to [redacted name], W13, who no longer wished to present their statement to the Court and the recording from the police investigation was previously played in Court instead.
Additionally, referring to page 3, in regards to [redacted name], F19, the Defense Counsel had asked if the witness had taken notes during the hearing via video. The Prosecutor clarified that F19 did not bring his own notes but rather received a note from the questioning officer containing the names the interviewer had mentioned during the hearing.
The questioning of the Accused began and the Prosecutor referred to the group “Aknaf Bait al-Maqdis" which the Accused had mentioned in previous interrogations to belong to the opposition. The Accused clarified that this was a sister organization and tied to an organization called “al-Ouhda al-Omaria.”
The Prosecution referred to [redacted name], W22,’s statements about the Accused’s friend, [redacted name], F34, being killed, which eventually led to the Accused changing his stance during the unrest. The Accused testified that his behavior did not change and confirmed that F34 was his close friend that was kidnapped and killed in Yarmouk. The Accused clarified that he was not siding with either party and that Yarmouk was neutral.
[redacted name], W31, mentioned during his hearing that the Accused had good knowledge of who people were in Yarmouk. The Accused attributed this to him working on Loubia street since he was eight years old, and therefore was able to recognize people.
In W13’s recording, he identified the Accused from a photo with [redacted name], F31, as someone who he had seen by the checkpoint by the entrance to Yarmouk. The Accused pointed out that the witness and his family, alongside the [redacted name] family, belong to a gang and make up things about him. In W13 testimony, he further talks about how he saw a couple offer the Accused money to leave, but the Accused had said that the money was not enough which had led to the woman kissing his boots and offering gold. The Accused explained that this woman was herself from the [redacted name] family and these events did not occur.
[redacted name], W32, mentioned in his testimony that the Accused was famous in the area and if he asked for something, it had to be done. He was known for his relations with the Security Services. The Accused claimed that he had no connections with the Security Services and that in Syria, especially Yarmouk, everyone knew everyone.
[redacted name], W18, stated that the Accused had an income source through his connections with officers. If someone wanted something done or particular documents, they could pay the Accused to help them with the service through his ties. The Accused said that those who wanted to join the Security Services had to pay a fee to get the role, and when you are employed by the Security Services you get a mission. No one would dare to interfere with their tasks and duties. The Prosecutor asked if the Accused knew who [redacted name], F46, was. The Accused denied knowing him. According to W18, F46 used to come to W18’s dry cleaner and ask where the Accused was. The Accused stated that it would be strange for F46 to ask W18 about him instead of calling him or going to his own store.
The Prosecutor asks about W22. The Accused recognized him as the guy who works with computers and electronics. W22 claimed that [redacted name], F5, and [redacted name], F8, received certain privileges for aiding the regime. The Accused claimed that he has never heard of such a thing. He continued that the witness testimony was not correct and W22 was never contacted by the government to build electronics for them.
According to [redacted name], W23’s testimony, he heard that the Accused has threatened people in Sweden that their family back in Syria will be harmed. The Accused claimed that this never happened.
The Prosecutor then mentioned that the Accused knew that those belonging to the Popular Committees could move in and out of Yarmouk. The Accused said that he knew that there was a collaboration between the Palestinian embassy and the Security Services, and they had certain passes for entrance and exiting. He had seen these permissions in 2013. The Prosecutor asked how come he knew about these passes in such detail and if this is due to him being present by the checkpoints. The Accused said that the checkpoints were manned by the Security Service, and added the Prosecutor was free to claim such things.
The Accused was asked about W28. The Accused knew him from their time in [redacted location]. W28 had testified that the Accused had told him how things were done by the checkpoint. There were questions about where the person was going, what they are going to do there, where they lived and who they know. If the person did not know the answers to these questions, they were “revealed.” The Accused said that after his visit to Syria in 2018 they asked how things were in Yarmouk and the Accused told them that it was over due to the amount of plundering. The Accused said that he did not say anything other than that.
[Redacted name], W12, had testified that he had not seen the Accused during his incident, but that he rather seemed hidden away. The Accused explained that he was sitting on a chair with [redacted name], F47, alongside two other young boys. There was a van there and a sniper across the mosque. The Accused went to the corner to see if the sniper had hit anyone and that was when he saw the Security Services take three girls and then W12. The Accused asked the Security Services why they took W12, and they said that the masked man had pointed him out. The Accused also added that W12 had seen him and he was not hiding. The Prosecutor noted that other witnesses have similar claims, that the Accused seemed to just have appeared by the checkpoints. The Accused asserted that there were no places to hide and he had no reasons to hide.
When asked about his presence at the checkpoint, the Accused claimed only to be visiting. The Prosecution continued by asking about the rumors about the Accused being one of the masked individuals by the roadblock. The Accused claimed that it is people belonging to Al Nusra who spread such rumors.
The Prosecution then recalled the great fear and anxiety described by witnesses and Plaintiffs about getting arrested by the Security Services. This has been confirmed to be a common feeling among all Syrians, however, the Prosecution noted the lack of such emotion in the Accused. The Accused explained that people in Syria lived a good life before, they ate and worked. He claimed that the uprising in Syria was not by the Syrian people. There were no feelings of fear or anxiety before the unrest. As long as you did not do anything wrong, you had no reason to worry. The Accused added that he was never in prison, so he would not know how it must be to be in prison.
The Defense Counsel asked one question, interested in the [redacted name] family and [redacted name], F14. He wanted to know whether they were a part of two different blocks, belonging to opposite ideologies. The Accused confirmed.
The proceedings were adjourned at 2:45 PM.
The next hearing will take place on March 17, 2026, at 09:00 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