Inside the Mahmoud S. Trial #19: The Defense’s Closing Arguments
TRIAL OF MAHMOUD S.
Solna District Court – Stockholm, Sweden
Trial Monitoring Summary #19
Hearing Date: March 23, 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 19th trial monitoring report details day 53 of the trial of Mahmoud S. in Stockholm, Sweden. On this last trial day before the judgment, the Defense presented its closing arguments emphasizing that the proceedings concerned the application of the rule of law rather than political alignment or activism. It argued that the Prosecution had failed to establish essential elements of the charges, including any proven nexus to the armed conflict, aggravated criminality, or reliable evidence of militia membership, responsibility, or causation. The Defense challenged the credibility and probative value of witness testimonies, citing risks of mistaken identity, contamination, collusion, confirmation bias, and ideological influence, as well as the absence of objective corroborating evidence. It concluded that the Accused had not been armed, had not participated in the alleged acts, and that the evidentiary shortcomings required dismissal of the charges or acquittal.
Day 53 – March 23, 2026
Today, the Court heard the Defense’s closing arguments. The Defense began by stating that this trial is not about choosing sides in the Syrian civil war, nor is it about protecting some kind of activism. It is about upholding the rule of law.
The Defense then argued that the charges cannot win approval in any part. It referred to wasta, a culturally rooted system in Syria and other countries in the region, whereby personal connections, family ties, or social networks are used to obtain favors or facilitate access to opportunities. It emphasized that reliance on such connections should not be conflated with an individual holding any formal military position. As a notorious fact, no evidence needed to be submitted in support of it.
In relation to the testimonies, the Defense emphasized that the notion of collective responsibility was widely held. According to this view, it was of lesser importance what Mahmoud S. had actually done; rather, his associations alone were considered sufficient to attribute responsibility to him, as reflected in the testimonies. The Defense further submitted that antipathy towards the regime, as well as towards certain of its associates, had significantly influenced these accounts.
The Defense outlined the legal prerequisites for a war crime (folkrättsbrott) compared to the basic form of the offence (normalgraden). It questioned the existence of a nexus between the alleged acts and the armed conflict. The Defense argued that the Prosecution was required to establish that the offence constituted an aggravated offence (grovt brott); if the Prosecution was only able to demonstrate the basic form of the offence, the charges should be dismissed.
With regard to the demonstration, during which ten people were reportedly killed, the Defense submitted that it was not possible to establish how, when, or where these individuals had lost their lives.
The Defense further highlighted that the Accused was alleged to have been a member of, or allied with, armed militia groups, and that the Swedish police requested information from the IIIM, but it could not be confirmed that the Accused had been a member. The CIJA reported that there was no evidence that the Accused had been connected to the militia groups, Shabiha.
The Defense recalled that the Prosecution had invoked a report from the SCM. The Defense submitted that this report does not have any evidentiary value of its own and that the Accused has been crammed into the chain of command. Further, SCM did barely have any knowledge of FPM before the request from the Prosecution, and argued that the expert witness from SCM, [redacted name], E1, was one the side of the regime opponents. The Defense then submitted that both the methodology and the conclusions were of such a nature that they could be disregarded.
The Defense also claimed that there was insufficient reliable evidence to establish that the Accused had been a member of a militia organization; he had not been a member.
The Defense continued by addressing the issue of mistaken identity. This case, and accordingly the testimonies, concern events thirteen years back in time. Expert witness, [redacted name], E4, testified that there was a risk that individuals incorporated details from what they have read in newspapers or heard from others. It was submitted that, in this case, measures to remedy such potential deficiencies had been lacking. The risk of, inter alia, contamination and collusion had been exceptional in these proceedings. In the present case, almost none of the witnesses had been able to identify the Accused in a standard photo identification procedure. Witnesses had identified incorrect individuals as the Accused, and several witnesses who were heard had confused the Accused with his brother, [redacted name], F6. Even otherwise credible witnesses may be mistaken. The Court should therefore remain attentive to any weaknesses in the identification evidence. Further, the risk of confirmation bias could not be overstated in this case and undermined the probative value of any testimonies concerning the Accused.
The Defense then turned to the issue of collusion and activism. The Defense submitted that [redacted name], W7, had repeatedly been in contact with witnesses during the investigation. Many of the witnesses were acquainted with one another, which was problematic, and the risk of collusion was, in this case, virtually total. The Prosecution had argued that it was inherent in the nature of such circumstances that grief-stricken individuals turn to one another. The Defense did not accept this explanation.
***
[15-minutes-break]
***
The Defense turned to the examined persons, whom it submitted had provided incriminating information concerning the Accused. These were as follows: P6, F14, W2, W26, W8, and [redacted name], P11, whose testimonies, according to the Defense, could be disregarded in their entirety, as he had not been present at the demonstration and had provided inaccurate information.
***
[1-hour-break]
***
Upon return from the break, the Defense turned to other interview evidence. It submitted that various Plaintiffs and witnesses had not observed any militia present at the demonstration on July 13, 2012. The Defense argued that it could not be excluded that opposition forces had initiated the shooting. It further referred to several testimonies in which there were no indications that the Accused had participated in the shootings of the victims in the case. Further, the Accused had not been dressed the same as the shooters. There had been snipers shooting by the biscuit factory. The Defense argued that there was a lack of objective evidence regarding the actual course of events. The principal evidence consisted of accounts from activists/members of the opposition.
The Defense continued by addressing the issue of the Northern checkpoint. There had been testimonies indicating that the checkpoint was established in the latter part of January 2013. According to several witnesses, the checkpoint was not staffed by the FPM. There was also an issue of causation, as, inter alia, several testimonies did not specify which checkpoint was being referred to.
The Defense then addressed the issue of the Accused’s responsibility. According to the testimonies of both of the [redacted name] brothers [W24 and W25], the Accused had no involvement in the arrest. None of the 11 named individuals had been detained at the Bashir Mosque. There was a lack of established causation, according to the Defense. Three witnesses testified that they had seen the Accused at or near the checkpoint, dressed in civilian clothing.
***
[15-minutes-break]
***
The Defense reviewed specific incidents alleged in the indictment. Plaintiff [redacted name], P5 had not claimed that the Accused had identified him. The incident did not constitute a war crime. There was no evidence that the Accused had participated in or facilitated any war crimes. Regarding [redacted name], P6, it was unclear when the incident had occurred. The information provided was not verifiable and should be disregarded, and the incident did not constitute a war crime. Concerning [redacted name], P7, he and [redacted name], W10 had provided differing statements regarding, among other things, the time and clothing involved. The incident did not constitute a war crime.
The Defense addressed the issue of a masked individual. According to NOA, open-source reports referred to one or more masked persons. The CIJA found no evidence that any of the individuals named in the request had been a masked person at a checkpoint. The SCM reported a masked individual or a group of masked individuals, which included, among others, the Accused and F6 [Mahmoud S.’s brother]. The AGPS had encouraged individuals to provide information about the Accused, described as “the masked man.” The only concrete evidence of a masked person was a photo on Facebook from 2024. The Defense submitted that the person in the photo was shorter than F8 and, therefore, could not be the Accused.
To conclude, the Defense stated that it had reviewed various examined persons and the available objective evidence. The Defense was not critical of all witnesses or the Plaintiffs’ accounts. It highlighted a number of points to which the Court should attach weight. Finally, the Defense submitted that the Accused had not been armed, had not fired any weapons, and had not been a member of a militia organization. The Defense also noted that it was for the Court to examine ex officio any acquittal claims. There was no rebuttal from the Prosecution.
The proceedings were adjourned at 1:55 PM.
The judgment will be handed down in writing on May 4, 2026 at 11:00 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