Inside the Majdi N. Trial #13: Testimony of Syrian Witness Investigating Jaysh Al-Islam's Involvement in the Kidnapping of the “Douma Four”

TRIAL OF MAJDI N.

Court of Assize – Paris, France  

Trial Monitoring Summary #13

Hearing Date: May 13, 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 13^th trial monitoring report details parts of day 7 (morning) of the trial of Majdi N. in Paris, France. On this trial day, Syrian witness W8 testified about his meeting with Majdi N. in Istanbul in the first half of May 2016. This meeting was convened to obtain information about Jaysh Al-Islam's involvement in the kidnapping of four famous Syrian activists, known as the “Douma four,” who disappeared on December 9, 2013. According to W8, Majdi N. promised that a report would be published by Jaysh Al-Islam to share information on the disappearance. However, W8 asserted that the report the Toran Center ultimately released solely intended to substantiate the group’s innocence regarding this matter.

Day 7 – May 13, 2025  

Morning Session

[The trial monitor missed the beginning of the testimony. This report documents the proceedings starting at 10:10 AM, although they began shortly before that time.]

[Redacted name] W8 was sworn in.

W8 testified that after the kidnapping of the “Douma four” on December 9, 2013, evidence pointed to Jaysh Al-Islam being responsible, and pressure was placed on actors within the group to clarify what had happened. In 2016, given the impossibility of pursuing legal action against Jaysh Al-Islam in Syria, a global initiative was launched to seek arbitration in the case. This initiative was transmitted to different Syrian actors, including Jaysh Al-Islam, who was asked to share information on the case.

A few months after the initiative was launched, W8 met a well-known Saudi writer named [Redacted name] who had met Majdi N. a few days earlier. W8 and this Saudi writer decided to meet Majdi N. to obtain a written response from Jaysh Al-Islam on the initiative.

Their meeting with Majdi N. took place in a cafeteria in Istanbul in the first half of May 2016. W8 reported that after he presented the demands [related to the aforementioned initiative], Majdi N. defended Jaysh Al-Islam and asserted their innocence in the matter. According to Majdi N., Jaysh Al-Islam did not bear legal responsibility but only carried a moral responsibility [مسؤولون أخلاقيا] to resolve this issue. Majdi N. indicated that the matter was complex, and that the truth would come out in due course.

Majdi N. also said that a report about the kidnapping would be published. W8 testified that it was ultimately released but did not contain the results of an investigation—rather, it presented a narrative affirming Jaysh Al-Islam’s innocence. The report also attacked Yasin Al-Haj Saleh, the husband of one of the “Douma four” Samira Al-Khalil, F22, for having extensively written on this matter.

W8 also asserted that Majdi N. had verbally confirmed that Jaysh Al-Islam would soon respond to the initiative, but this never happened and, following these events, Majdi N. resigned from Jaysh Al-Islam.

Presiding Judge Lavergne repeated that the French Court of Appeal alleged Jaysh Al-Islam’s involvement in the kidnapping of the “Douma four” but decided to dismiss Majdi N.’s responsibility for this charge [see Trial Report #2]. He asked whether any complaints had been filed in Turkey, and W8 confirmed, emphasizing that none had been successful. Presiding Judge Lavergne explained that the [aforementioned] report seemed to have been drafted by a member of the Toran Center under the supervision of Majdi N. W8 asserted that the Toran Center operated under Jaysh Al-Islam’s authority when it came to issues related to Syria. W8 also confirmed that he met Majdi N. in his capacity as spokesperson and that his resignation was made public a year after they met.

Presiding Judge Lavergne inquired about Jaysh Al-Islam’s ideology and conflicts with human rights defenders. W8 responded that Jaysh Al-Islam took many prisoners and inflicted brutal treatments on them [تعامل وحشي – the interpreter translated it as “torture,” but the Arabic term rather means brutal treatments]. W8 also mentioned the exhibition of civilians in cages.

Civil Parties’ Counsels’ Questioning of W8

Responding to Counsel Bailly, W8 confirmed it was known [معروف] among Syrians that Jaysh Al-Islam committed crimes and arbitrarily arrested and kidnapped opponents and activists. W8 then declared that Majdi N. had been kind and very polite, but his deputy who was also present was more tense and when the tension rose, Majdi N. would calm things down. When questioned if Majdi N. had appeared in a military uniform, W8 asserted that Majdi N. wore a suit and tie and appeared elegant.

Counsel Bailly wondered why they met in a mall, and W8 said he did not choose the location, but they had agreed to meet in a public place. He confirmed Majdi N. was accompanied by his deputy, who took notes, and another person was present but did not sit at the same table. W8 could not say if this person was a bodyguard. At the end of the meeting, W8 remarked that this person signaled that it was time to leave. That gave W8 the impression that Majdi N. was an important person, since he was accompanied by others [شخص مهم يرافقه أشخاص].

Counsel Bailly asked if Majdi N. claimed to have decision-making or arbitration authority concerning the kidnapping. W8 replied that Majdi N. had wanted to discuss the matter but stressed that he himself was not the one making the final decision. W8 said that Majdi N. did not try to downplay his role within Jaysh Al-Islam. However, even though W8 did not hear it himself, people used to say that Majdi N. was complaining about how Jaysh Al-Islam was treating him at that time.

Counsel Bailly quoted W8’s statement before the Investigative Judge in which he reported that Majdi N. had addressed Jaysh Al-Islam's Salafist jihadist‑ rhetoric during the meeting, indicating that this discourse primarily targeted an internal audience. ‑Majdi N. reportedly suggested that Jaysh Al-Islam intended to also address Israel, the US, and European audiences [and did not use the same rhetoric toward them]. W8 asserted that Majdi N. did not say such a thing during their encounter, and believed it was an error in the translation of his statement to the Judge. W8 clarified that Majdi N. would rather make such a statement in public speeches.

Counsel Bailly asked whether one could speak of a duplicity by Jaysh Al-Islam. In response, W8 explained that from 2015 onward, Jaysh Al-Islam sought to establish new connections by moving away from its early Salafist roots. W8 noted that there were attempts by Jaysh Al-Islam to open channels [فتح خط] with the US, and in that perspective, the faction released media statements and met with researchers and foreign political figures. W8 added that these media presences were the results of Majdi N.’s efforts in Turkey. To conclude, W8 said he could not confirm whether this constituted a duplicity—because he himself did not use this term.

Considering the committing of war crimes by Jaysh Al-Islam, W8 asserted that the group of course denied it and emphasized that no organization would acknowledge committing crimes in a public declaration.

Prosecution's Questioning of W8

Responding to Prosecutor Thouault, W8 explained that Jaysh Al-‑Islam’s defense consistently asserted that accusations brought against the group were ideologically motivated—secularists would accuse Jaysh Al-Islam because they inherently had problems with Islamists. According to W8, the report published on the kidnapping of the “Douma four” explicitly reflected this very same position.

According to W8’s statement to the Investigative Judge, Prosecutor Thouault noted that, during their meeting, Majdi N. had explained how complex the case was and that many actors were involved, including states and intelligence services. W8 confirmed Majdi N. had made such an assertion and that some of the missing individuals were believed to be in Egypt. W8 added that recurring public speeches by Zahran Alloush also referred to external links behind this affair.

Referring to W8’s statement, Prosecutor Thouault noted that Jaysh Al-Islam declared to not have helped families of the disappeared because they had aggressively confronted the group. W8 recalled that Majdi N. criticized the way Jaysh Al-Islam managed relations with the families. Majdi N. reportedly had also made clear that Jaysh Al-Islam did not have any official responsibility to investigate the case, again referring to a moral rather than a legal obligation.

Prosecutor Thouault inquired about the kind of information that W8 could obtain during the meeting with Majdi N. W8 believed Majdi N. to be a key figure within Jaysh Al-I‑slam with information about the kidnapping. However, W8 regretted that he ultimately had shared no information, even though he had promised to do so.

Prosecutor Thouault raised W8’s statement about Majdi N.’s detractors who apparently called him a “populist Salafist.” W8 responded he did not recall this detail but confirmed Majdi N. was known to be a Salafist.

Prosecutor Thouault asked W8 to confirm information he had on other crimes committed by Jaysh Al-Islam. W8 declared that Syrians knew about Jaysh Al-Islam’s prisons, deadly battles against other factions, and the attack on Adra Al-Omaliya. He added that the whole world saw crimes committed by Jaysh Al-Islam on women, children, and prisoners put in cages. However, W8 said he had no internal details about what happened exactly and only followed the events in Syria as a journalist.

Prosecutor Thouault asked if, in W8’s opinion, information on crimes committed by Jaysh Al-Islam were reliable, or if he thought they were lies spread by Jaysh Al-Islam’s adversaries to tarnish the group’s image. W8 replied that the volume of information available as well as the documentation by the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) or the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM) was confirmation that crimes had likely been committed. W8 noted that the group itself even released videos and published materials that could be considered evidence of criminal conduct. W8 emphasized that he remained extremely cautious to not repeat anything that was not documented. For instance, W8 noted that the regime claimed the shopping mall where he met Majdi N. in Istanbul ‑belonged to Jaysh Al-Islam, which of course was not accurate.

Defense Counsel’s Questioning of W8

Counsel Ruiz emphasized that Majdi N. was not prosecuted for enforced disappearances. He first inquired about W8’s statement that it was difficult for someone following events in Syria to not know Islam Alloush, which W8 confirmed again.

Responding to Counsel Ruiz, W8 testified that he had not met any other spokesperson of armed groups. Counsel Ruiz inquired about the choice of the public location [the mall] where they met in Istanbul. W8 explained that he had asked the intermediary that the meeting be arranged in a public location and, from what W8 understood, it had also been Majdi N.’s suggestion.

When questioned about the atmosphere surrounding the meeting, Counsel Ruiz noted that Majdi N. was polite, while his colleague was aggressive—but Majdi N. intervened to stop him from severely rebuking W8. W8 confirmed that Majdi N. succeeded to calm things down.

Counsel Ruiz explained that he had the impression of an atmosphere of pressure during the meeting, pointing out that Majdi N. came with his personal guard to impress his interlocutors. In response, W8 replied that he did not know whether the intent was to impress him or not but, in his view, the objective was to maintain calm and perhaps avoid any problems. W8 clarified that he had spoken of companions [مرافقين] or of observers to describe the people accompanying Majdi N. but never used the word guards [حراس]. Counsel Ruiz insisted that this unclarity of translation be specified in the proceedings.

Counsel Ruiz also noted another potential translation error on the term “populist Salafist.” W8 confirmed he never used that term and believed there had been a mistake in translation.

Counsel Ruiz shifted discussion to the reasons for Majdi N.’s resignation from Jaysh Al-Islam and recalled Majdi N.’s interview with Israeli journalist Elizabeth Tsurkov, F32. W8 did not know whether Majdi N. resigned or was dismissed. Regarding the interview, W8 reported that Majdi N. mentioned the possibility of rebuilding relations with Israel and noted that it was an imprudent move on his part that could have triggered his resignation.

Proceedings were suspended at 11:39 AM.