Inside the Majdi N. Trial #10: Testimonies of OCLCH Head and Chief of Operations on the Circumstances of Majdi N.’s Arrest
TRIAL OF MAJDI N.
Court of Assize – Paris, France
Trial Monitoring Summary #10
Hearing Date: May 7, 2025
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.]
[Note: Rather than publishing the trial reports of the Majdi N. case in chronological order, SJAC has organized them thematically and coherently based on the content of the hearings, making the material more accessible by highlighting key issues and connections across the proceedings.]
SJAC’s 10th trial monitoring report details day 5 (morning) of the trial of Majdi N. in Paris, France. On this trial day, the head and investigators of the OCLCH (French Central Office for Combating Core International Crimes and Hate Crimes) were heard. The head of the OCLCH provided information on the Office’s missions and methods of investigation, particularly related to the Syrian context. The Chief of Operation, W5, then detailed the early stages of the investigation and the arrest of Majdi N. in Marseille on January 29, 2020. A photo taken of Majdi N. in custody was displayed in court, showing Majdi N.’s face was bruised. Consequently, W5 testified that the Gendarmerie informed the National Antiterrorism Prosecutor’s Office of the circumstances of the arrest and requested an administrative investigation. W5 was intensively questioned by the Court and the parties on the circumstances of the arrest, which Majdi N. described as extremely brutal. In the afternoon, the investigator in charge of the case was heard and, subsequently, Majdi N. was questioned on the facts of the case (see Trial Report #11).
Day 5 – May 7, 2025
Morning Session
Proceedings began at 9:40 AM.
Testimony of General Jean Philippe Reiland, Head of the OCLCH (French Central Office for Combating Core International Crimes and Hate Crimes) – W4
The witness was sworn in.
Mr. Reiland provided information about the Office’s missions and internal organization. He indicated that the Office was currently working on 24 Syrians’ case files, among others. He stressed that the engagement of NGOs, particularly the Syria Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM), was crucial. However, he was careful to avoid direct contact between NGOs and investigators. He explained how OCLCH staff were trained to work in different contexts and emphasized that they investigated both incriminating and exculpatory evidence. He added that after the fall of the Syrian regime, he set up an investigative cell, made up of 14 members, dedicated to executing the arrest warrants France issued against Syrian officials. He was questioned by the parties on the Office’s investigation methods and the current files they worked on. Questioned by the Defense, he replied that the Office recently opened an investigation on Palestine.
Testimony of Chief of Operations at the OCLCH [redacted name] – W5
The witness was sworn in.
W5 reported that on January 13, 2020, the PNAT (National Antiterrorism Prosecutor’s Office) assigned the investigation on Majdi N. to the OCLCH. Following surveillance and initial investigations, the Office determined that the Accused was located in Marseille. On January 24, they received additional information from the Civil Parties and the Prosecution on Majdi N.’s role in Jaysh Al-Islam. The GIGN [Groupe d’intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale, i.e. the elite unit of the French National Gendarmerie] carried out Majdi N.’s arrest in Marseille on the morning of January 29, 2020, and searched his apartment.
Questioned by Presiding Judge Lavergne, W5 explained that the arrest was carried out on the street, in public, to minimize the risk of collateral damage. He added that no weapons were found on the Accused or in his apartment. The search led to the seizure of digital devices, which provided access to an exceptional amount of information: several thousand files. W5 testified that the analysis took no less than two years.
W5 reported that due to the strike of the Marseille Bar, Majdi N. could not be assisted by a lawyer during his custody, but he agreed to answer questions. W5 also pointed out that after his arrest, his face was bruised, so both a medical examination and an ophthalmological examination were conducted. The medical certificates indicated that his health condition was compatible with being placed in police custody. At the request of the Defense, the photo of Majdi N. taken after his arrest, which showed his face was bruised, was displayed in court. Presiding Judge Lavergne emphasized that his condition was quite striking upon his arrival at the detention facility.
W5 reported that the Gendarmerie informed the PNAT of the arrest, and requested an administrative investigation, prompting all those involved to submit reports to their superiors in order to clarify the events. The commander of the Gendarmerie concluded that there had been no unlawful use of force.
Counsel Ruiz indicated that the Defense filed a complaint [on April 8, 2024] regarding the circumstances of arrest, but the Marseille Prosecutor’s Office had still not given a response. Prosecutor Thouault later indicated that the complaint had been registered by Marseille Prosecutor’s Office the day before the present hearing. Civil Parties’ Counsel Bailly stated that he agreed with the Defense and expressed his surprise that the GIGN had conducted such a violent arrest.
Prosecutor Havard requested W5 to detail the custody conditions and confirm that procedures such as interpretation, duration of the interrogation, breaks, access to food, etc. had been respected. W5 confirmed. Prosecutor Thouault questioned whether the evidence discovered prior to the arrest suggested that Majdi N. was armed. As a response, W5 referred to open-source research and details outlined in the complaint that could suggest the possibility the Accused was armed, and pointed out the easy availability of weapons in Marseille.
In response to Defense Counsel Kempf, W5 acknowledged that during surveillance, Majdi N. had not displayed suspicious behavior. Regarding the circumstances of the arrest, W5 insisted that in cases of violence, the Gendarmerie strived to uncover the truth. Defense Counsel Ruiz inquired as to when W5 first became aware of Majdi N.’s bruised face. W5 replied he saw him when his rights were notified [upon his arrival in custody], adding that he could not comment on his appearance beforehand, as a hood was placed over his head during transportation.
Counsel Ruiz asserted that Majdi N. claimed his testicles were grabbed very forcefully during the arrest. W5 replied that members of the GIGN are trained to consider three specific zones on the body. The third one is off-limits for strikes, and that includes the face and the genital area.
Majdi N. was given the opportunity to share his experience of the arrest. He testified that he had nothing against W5 but described the arrest as extremely brutal [اعتقال كان كتير وحشة]. He recalled that a man approached him without any introduction, before starting to strike him in the face. The man didn’t wear a police armband. Two individuals grabbed his testicles and squeezed them twice. From Majdi N.’s perspective, the arrest was driven by vengeance [موضوع انتقام], and he had believed that a gang was attacking him. Throughout the entire arrest, no one mentioned being from the police. He remembered being handcuffed behind his back, and his arms were forced upwards. He was put into the vehicle between two seats by force.
During transportation, his apprehenders put a hood over his nose and mouth, making it difficult for him to breathe. At one point, Majdi N. realized that one of the officers had placed his hand over his nose and mouth, preventing him from breathing, and he almost lost consciousness. When the officer realized this, he removed his hand. Inside the vehicle, the officer finally declared that he was from the police, took an armband from his pocket, and put it on his arm. Majdi N. didn’t believe him and asked for his ID. Majdi N. further noted that the police reports pointed to the fact that the officer who had struck him initially had announced he was from the police. Majdi N. claimed that this was in contradiction to what he experienced. The report also stated that Majdi N. believed he was being kidnapped by a foreign intelligence service. According to Majdi N., “It was the most traumatic experience of [his] life, despite having lived in a war-torn country.” He felt that he was close to death, mentioning the moment when he couldn’t breathe and that only a few seconds remained before he would either lose consciousness or die.
Presiding Judge Lavergne noted that the documents related to Majdi N.’s medical examination mentioned no complaints regarding the testicles. Majdi N. responded that the most important thing was to be taken to an ophthalmologist, because he couldn’t see anymore, adding that he was still in shock [تحت صدمة]. Presiding Judge Lavergne noted that his visual acuity was stated to be 9/10, and Majdi N. asserted that he had not been able to open his eyes. Defense Counsel Kempf said that in custody, Majdi N. did mention that his testicles were violently grabbed.
Proceedings were suspended at 12:47 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