Inside the Majdi N. Trial #31: Interrogation on the Accused’s Involvement in the Military and Policy Office and Movements between Syria and Turkey from 2013 to 2016

TRIAL OF MAJDI N. 

Court of Assize – Paris, France 

Trial Monitoring Summary #31 

Hearing Dates: May 22 and 23, 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 31^st trial monitoring report details parts of days 14 and 15 of the trial of Majdi N. in Paris, France. On these trial days, the Accused was questioned about his role in Jaysh Al-Islam training camps, most notably a camp located in northern Syria. Majdi N. asserted that he was not head of the camp, but rather a supervisor. The Parties also inquired about Majdi N.’s involvement and level of knowledge of Jaysh Al-Islam military operations. The Prosecution insisted on asking how the presence of Majdi N. in military operation centers or NATO intercept cells was related to the role of spokesperson. The Defense presented a document listing and dating movements of Majdi N. between May 2013, when he allegedly left Ghouta, and the summer of 2016. This document pointed to no evidence of Majdi N.’s presence in Ghouta in that period. In reaction, the Prosecution presented evidence showing that Majdi N. in fact came back to Ghouta, and that more generally, the Accused was aware of detention, torture, and other poor treatment inflicted by Jaysh Al-Islam on the population. The Defense requested the projection of five video statements of people who declared to have met Majdi N. in northern Syria or Turkey and who praised the Accused’s qualities. 

Days 14 and 15 – May 22 and 23, 2025   

Proceedings began at 9:58 AM. 

Civil Parties’ Counsels’ Questioning of Majdi N. 

Majdi N. repeated that he never accessed files of prisoners held in Jaysh Al-Islam’s prisons. Counsel Zarka mentioned a conversation in which the Accused referenced a man convicted for belonging to ISIS, which showed that he had access to the case. Majdi N. responded that as a spokesperson, he gathered information from Jaysh Al-Islam and transmitted it [to the people who had requests]. He proceeded the same way when informed about acts of torture.  

Counsel Zarka noted a paradox between Majdi N.’s lack of curiosity toward Jaysh Al-Islam’s activities, and the fact that he chose to conduct academic research on armed factions and gave a conference on this topic in 2020. Counsel Zarka asked why Majdi N. did not take the opportunity of this conference to raise the alarm about the crimes committed by Jaysh Al-Islam. Majdi N. responded that he was not specialized in these subjects and only addressed military issues.  

Counsel Zarka retorted that Majdi N. did everything to polish the image of Jaysh Al-Islam toward the world while people in Ghouta were living in absolute hell. She mentioned a document found on Majdi N.’s computer related to a meeting dated December 10, 2015, which aimed at showing British diplomats that Jaysh Al-Islam had no terrorist intent. Majdi N. said the Policy Office prepared the document, not him, and added that there seemed to be an issue with translation.  

Counsel Zarka noted that in the résumé Majdi N. sent to King’s College London, he mentioned a training camp holding 240 people. Majdi N. said it was certainly accurate. He repeated that he was not responsible for this camp and only the French translation referred to such a position, whereas in Arabic, nothing pointed to that. Counsel Zarka asked if in the conscription offices, Majdi N. made sure that no children were recruited. The Accused said he did not remember.  

When asked what the purpose of propaganda was, Majdi N. repeated it was to obtain financial support and continue [the activities]. Counsel Bailly contended that the Accused presented himself as a whistleblower but did not remember anything, adding that he was apparently responsible for nothing. Majdi N. confirmed he questioned the charges brought against him. Counsel Bailly again referenced a document entitled “rationalization of jihadist communication,” and Majdi N. said he did not draft it but received it from an affiliate of Jaysh Al-Islam. Counsel Bailly then requested the projection of a video in which suspected ISIS members were executed.  

Proceedings were suspended for 15 minutes. 

Counsel Bailly asked if Majdi N. was particularly proud of this video. Majdi N. said he did not know, adding that he was not the one who shared it because he would have lost access to his social media accounts if he had. Majdi N. could not remember if he participated in its creation. 

Counsel Bailly mentioned a tweet dated March 3, 2015, published with a photo of Majdi N. where he appeared armed and wearing a headband. Counsel Bailly wondered if the Accused had been injured, or if he was sick. Majdi N. said he was injured after having been hit by a stray bullet on the way from Idlib to Turkey. He added that soldiers did not use the weapon he was carrying in the photo. Counsel Bailly referenced another photo in which Majdi N. was carrying a Kalashnikov, and Majdi N. confirmed that he used different types of weapons.  

Counsel Bailly shifted to a YouTube video dated March 12, 2015, filmed in Jaysh Al-Islam’s military camp Ali Bin Abu Talib in Idlib. Majdi N. confirmed he appeared in the video, which was filmed for propaganda purposes. Majdi N. said he did not remember how long he stayed in this camp, stressing that he only passed by for this propaganda. Counsel Bailly noted that Majdi N. could pass the border between Turkey and Syria. 

Counsel Bailly noted different declarations the Accused made on the Al-Shafuniyah الشفونية barracks camp and asked if, like the camp in northern Syria, this camp was for propaganda purposes. Majdi N. confirmed. Counsel Bailly claimed that the quality of the video reminded him of Hezbollah videos and wondered if this was a source of inspiration. Majdi N. did not think so.  

In a document listing talking points for interviews, Counsel Bailly noted a point that Jaysh Al-Islam treated the population equally. Majdi N. said he remembers this document well and explained that Al-Qaeda and ISIS divided their prisoners depending on religious affiliation, whereas Jaysh Al-Islam assigned the prisoners based on the crimes they committed. Majdi N. added that revolutionary factions did not commit many violations, and such stories were spread by enemies of Jaysh Al-Islam. He added that in Syria, everybody knew who the real criminals were, namely the regime, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS. 

When questioned about people placed in cages, Majdi N. reported that, according to Jaysh Al-Islam, civilians were behind the event, and Majdi N. could not be certain that Jaysh Al-Islam was lying. Concerning child recruitment, Counsel Bailly mentioned the document by the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, which reported 103 cases [of child recruitment] in Jaysh Al-Islam. Majdi N. said he could not respond. Majdi N. further said he did not remember the Al-Batta farm where [redacted name], F13, went for recruitment. In his statement, F13 also reported to have seen recruitment posters targeting minors in July 2013. Majdi N. wondered how it was possible that no photos of these posters were shared in media, whereas Jaysh Al-Islam had many opponents. Counsel Bailly retorted that [redacted name], W20, also mentioned such posters, and asked Majdi N. if he remembered what happened to people who took pictures. Majdi N. said he was not in Ghouta to be able to reply. Counsel Bailly further referenced F13’s description of the training camp he participated in and asked Majdi N. if he remembered making speeches before young recruits, which Majdi N. did not. The Accused added that he never said that he was head of the camp, but rather a supervisor.  

Counsel Bailly mentioned a French intelligence note and the testimonies of Civil Parties [redacted name], W21 and [redacted name], W22, all referring to the poor reputation of Zahran Alloush. Majdi N. responded he could not believe that Zahran Alloush insulted people, adding that he had a very good relationship with him. Zahran Alloush took strategical decisions alone, and Majdi N. mostly talked with him about politics.  

When questioned by Counsel Bailly about Jaysh Al-Islam’s attacks on Damascus in February 2015 that led to civilians' casualties, Majdi N. said he was not in Ghouta at that time.  

Proceedings were suspended at 12:42 PM and resumed at 1:59 PM.  

Prosecution's Questioning of Majdi N. 

Prosecutor Havard referenced the document drafted by the Accused about the role of a spokesperson that listed talking points for interviews to soften Jaysh Al-Islam’s image. According to her, the aim was to show that the group was far from holding any extremist ideology and was fighting for the dignity of the Syrian people and for a state governed by the rule of law. Prosecutor Havard asked if this intended to ease the West’s concerns in order to obtain funding and participate in negotiations. Majdi N. responded that those were principles he believed in.  

Prosecutor Havard mentioned a document related to a meeting of Majdi N. with a US emissary, which demonstrated the Accused had diplomatic missions, and Majdi N. confirmed he had met him. Prosecutor Havard further asked if Majdi N. participated in the international negotiations between the regime and opposition forces that took place on January 4 and 5, 2016, and Majdi N. said he did not. Prosecutor Havard wondered how the Accused could have drafted such a detailed report on a meeting he did not attend, and Majdi N. said he might have written it based on a recording.  

Prosecutor Havard referenced an audio recording found on Majdi N.’s digital devices in which the Accused said to no longer be spokesperson but head of the Central Policy Office. Majdi N. said he did not remember. Prosecutor Havard mentioned another document that stated that the Accused had become Executive Director of the Policy Office, but the Court interpreter noted a mistake in translation. Majdi N. explained that [redacted name] was the one who had been appointed as head of the Police Office.  

Prosecutor Havard mentioned another document dated 2016 in which Majdi N. was presented as [redacted name], F7’s Chief of Office, and the Accused said he was certainly not, but his brother [redacted name], F6 was. When questioned about his functions in the Policy Office, Majdi N. said he oversaw “relations.” Referring to the organizational chart of Jaysh Al-Islam in which Majdi N. was presented as head of the Toran Center and in charge of foreign relations and relations with NGOs, Prosecutor Havard asked what the Accused’s precise role was. Majdi N. replied that the organizational chart was a draft, and after Zahran Alloush’s death, the organization of the Policy Office was not clear anymore.  

Prosecutor Havard noted that Majdi N. had declared to be in contact with Jaysh Al-Islam's Chief of General Staff [redacted name], F8, which showed that his interlocutors were the most high-ranking officials within the group. Majdi N. said he was in contact with Zahran Alloush, who held an even higher rank than F8. Majdi N. explained that as spokesperson, he had no intermediaries between him and the chiefs.  

Referring to a conversation between the Accused and F8, Prosecutor Havard deduced that Majdi N. took part in a meeting of Jaysh Al-Islam's Military Council in November 2015 and wondered if his participation in such meetings was typical. Majdi N. responded that the Syria Military Council المجلس العسكري في سوريا did not fall under the group’s authority but was a national coalition that represented the Syrian opposition. As for the precise meeting, Majdi N. reported that it took place in Hatay or Istanbul, Turkey.  

Prosecutor Havard referenced a recording of a conversation dated February 9, 2016, which showed that Majdi N. gave instructions related to Jaysh Al-Islam’s interception of communications between units of the regime’s military. She wondered how that was related to his functions as spokesperson. Majdi N. explained that this international interceptions’ chamber located in Ankara was managed by the Turkish authorities and received instructions from the British, the Americans, etc. It belonged to NATO. The intercepted information was shared with all factions of the revolution, except for ISIS and Al-Qaeda. As for the instruction Majdi N. gave to stop an interception, the Accused explained that Jaysh Al-Islam made the decision from Ghouta to give such an instruction, and he only transferred it. Prosecutor Havard mentioned another conversation which showed that Majdi N. was informed about intercepted conversations and present in a military operation center and asked again how that related to his role as spokesperson. Majdi N. depicted that it did not relate to his role as spokesperson but his role in relations with other military factions. He added that he transferred the collected information to Jaysh Al-Islam. Prosecutor Havard asked how someone without military functions could be present in an intercept station, and Majdi N. asserted it related to his role in communications that also consisted of transferring military information. The spokesperson had a role in the media and in the military.  

Prosecutor Havard noted Majdi N.’s previous declaration that he was not aware of an operation before it was carried out. Majdi N. explained he was not informed about operations conducted by the revolutionaries, but operations of the regime. 

Prosecutor Havard referenced another conversation about the transmission of information to Jaysh Al-Islam's General Staff. She commented that Majdi N. seemed upset and reprimanded his interlocutor. Prosecutor Havard asked which hierarchical rank allowed him to behave so, and Majdi N. said it fell under the scope of his friendship with that person.  

Prosecutor Havard mentioned a conversation in which a man called [redacted name] asked Majdi N. to indicate the point of impact on a map to make the necessary corrections. [redacted name] added that the next time, he would inform Majdi N. 30 minutes to one hour before the strike, so that they could adjust the target accordingly. Majdi N. said he did not remember the conversation. Prosecutor Havard mentioned another conversation about ten surface-to-air missiles and stressed that Majdi N. put his interlocutor in touch with a man called [redacted name]. Prosecutor Havard wondered why people approached Majdi N. about weaponry and missiles. Majdi N. repeated that his role was limited to public relations. 

Shifting to another topic, Prosecutor Havard noted that many people contacted Majdi N. to report others and referenced a conversation denouncing a woman who allegedly leaked information and was accused of being a prostitute and collaborating with the Syrian regime. Majdi N.’s interlocutor suggested transmitting the contact details of the person, and Majdi N. approved. When asked if he remembered this conversation, the Accused said, “Possibly.” Prosecutor Havard mentioned other conversations in which Majdi N. received information about people allegedly affiliated with the regime or with ISIS, and Majdi N. said he did not remember or did not know. To summarize, Prosecutor Havard said that Majdi N. clearly received information about various subjects that pertained to an intelligence service, namely Jaysh Al-Islam’s Security Office, and had no link to the function of spokesperson. Majdi N. repeated it related to his role in public relations. Prosecutor Havard wondered why this information was not sent to [redacted name], F29 [Jaysh Al-Islam leader in charge of security], and Majdi N. responded that F29 had no link to the media.  

Prosecutor Havard further asserted that the Accused was contacted by people who were looking for their loved ones, and one of them mentioned the Al-Batoon prison. Prosecutor Havard noted that, however, Majdi N. denied having heard of Al-Batoon beside in the press. Majdi N. explained that it would have been disrespectful to react to the person’s question with surprise and could not tell him that he was a liar. So, Majdi N. tried to gather information and added that he could feel the people’s suffering since he himself was a former prisoner, just like his brother. Prosecutor Havard stressed that other conversations showed that Majdi N. was very often contacted about the fate of prisoners and sometimes responded within a few hours. Prosecutor Havard asked who Majdi N. got his information from and if he had a list of detainees in his possession. Majdi N. said that he repeated his explanation many times and was always asked the same question. “Maybe because we never obtained a response,” Prosecutor Havard retorted. 

Shifting to conversations on the exchange of prisoners, Prosecutor Havard inquired about the Accused’s role in this matter. Majdi N. did not wish to respond. Regarding a conversation dated October 22, 2017, in which a famous journalist called Faisal Al-Qasim inquired about one of his relatives, Majdi N. said he wanted to see the document and could not respond. He added that he was a researcher on Syria and, as such, had relations with everybody, not only Jaysh Al-Islam.  

Regarding military camps and child recruitment, Prosecutor Havard mentioned a message dated September 16, 2015, in which Majdi N. was asked to provide commentary for the graduation parade in Ghouta. Majdi N. repeated that it was for propaganda purposes, and the person who asked him was the Deputy Commander in the northern sector [redacted name], F26. He confirmed that he went to the parade. Prosecutor Havard noted that this trip was not included in the list of the Accused’s movement that was provided by the Defense [see below]. Prosecutor Havard then referenced a conversation showing that Majdi N. was in consideration for the role of the deputy of Jaysh Al-Islam's Commander in the northern sector, [redacted name], F9, but it did not work out. Majdi N. did not remember. Regarding a message dated January 27, 2016 listing the logistical needs of young people (3,000 uniforms and 100 tents), Majdi N. said he was good at communication and was fast at typing on a computer.  

Prosecutor Havard then focused on the statement of [redacted name], F13, which was regarded merely as informational [and did not carry the same probative value as formal witness testimony]. F13 depicted the organization of military training at Jaysh Al-Islam. Prosecutor Havard then requested the projection of a document showing the daily program of a military camp, which showed the intensity of the training.  

Referring to a conversation on the Paris attacks in November 2015, in which a person described Majdi N. as Policy Advisor of Zahran Alloush, Majdi N. confirmed he had this role but regretted that this information was again extracted from its context. He asserted that all factions, except for Ahrar Ash-Sham, released a communiqué on the Paris attacks, and since Majdi N. could not reach Zahran Alloush at that time, he decided to sign this communiqué. This resulted in an important internal issue within Jaysh Al-Islam. When questioned on another conversation in which the Accused gave his opinion on an agreement between Jaysh Al-Islam, Russia, and the Syrian regime, Majdi N. confirmed he advised Zahran Alloush. Concerning the growing tensions between the northern sector and Ghouta, Majdi N. testified that Jaysh Al-Islam made the decision to stop paying salaries to martyrs’ families located outside Ghouta, which the Accused found discriminatory. That triggered the breakup between him and Jaysh Al-Islam. 

Prosecutor Havard then requested the projection of nine different photos in which Majdi N. appeared with Zahran Alloush, other Jaysh Al-Islam affiliates, or [redacted name], W13. The photos were taken in Syria between 2013 and 2015, in cities such as Raqqa, Lattakia, Idlib, etc. Majdi N. explained that these visits were for observation and control purposes. 

Prosecutor Thouault mentioned the fate of a pilot of the Syrian regime called Nawras Hassan نورس حسن. A video from Jaysh Al-Islam’s YouTube channel reported his arrest on July 1, 2016, after which a photo displaying his corpse was published. Prosecutor Thouault emphasized that this treatment violated the rule Majdi N. had issued, namely, to not photograph prisoners. She added that the same day, Majdi N. said that the pilot had been handed over to Jabhat Al-Nusra before being killed. Majdi N. said he could not remember and was in Turkey at that time. Prosecutor Thouault stressed that one could think that Majdi N. tried to attribute this crime to Jabhat Al-Nusra and exonerate Jaysh Al-Islam.  

Prosecutor Thouault wondered why Majdi N. did not take the occasion of his encounter with British emissary Tom Shepherd to denounce the exhibition of civilians in cages. Majdi N. said he did not know. Prosecutor Thouault wondered if Majdi N. believed that the videos of this event were fake news. Majdi N. responded that he could not trust what the regime published. Prosecutor Thouault asked how Majdi N. could explain that his friend W13 declared that Zahran Alloush informed him of this event. Majdi N. declared that both W13 and Zahran Alloush were his friends, but if he had to choose between both, he would say that W13 was lying and not Zahran Alloush. Majdi N. added that he was in Turkey at that time and had no way to verify. When confronted with the testimonies referring to minors in Jaysh Al-Islam’s prisons, Majdi N. also said he was not there.  

Prosecutor Thouault then referenced a conversation in which Majdi N.’s interlocutor said, “That deserves a month in the At-Tawba prison!” to which Majdi N. laughed. Prosecutor Thouault shifted to a post in which the uncle of [redacted name], F85 shared a photo of his nephew’s corpse and stated that he died under torture in Jaysh Al-Islam’s prison. A tweet by Majdi N. dated July 12, 2015 stated that F85 had been accused of killing a Commander of Jaysh Al-Islam. Majdi N. said he was certain to not have seen this picture and asserted that he would have denounced it, had he witnessed such a crime. 

Prosecutor Thouault mentioned a communication by the Unified Judiciary Council which condemned the fact that Jaysh Al-Islam arrested a man called [redacted name], F86 and, after he had died, did not return his body back to his family. Jaysh Al-Islam then released a communiqué explaining that F86 died because of his diabetes and low blood pressure. In a conversation with [redacted name], F65, Prosecutor Thouault further noted how Majdi N. declared that the jailer who beat F86 and caused his death had been presented to the Unified Judiciary Council and that Jaysh Al-Islam apologized. Prosecutor Thouault interpreted that Majdi N. had tried to hide the truth. Prosecutor Thouault lastly mentioned another case of a men called [redacted name], F87, who died under torture in Jaysh Al-Islam’s prison, which led to a demonstration in Jobar جوبر. Majdi N. said he did not remember either case.  

When questioned about the report by the Violation Documentation Center, Majdi N. claimed that he only became aware of it once he arrived in detention. Prosecutor Thouault mentioned a document by Liwa Al-Islam signed by the “Counsel in Security, Islam Alloush” and referring to a Sheikh who beat a prisoner laying near a corpse. She asked the Accused if he belonged to this counsel in 2013. Majdi N. denied and asked if he could see the document.  

Commenting on a document dated September 2015 and a tweet dated 2016 which respectively referred to Jaysh Al-Islam's intent to eradicate ISIS members and to exchange ISIS prisoners, Prosecutor Thouault deduced that Jaysh Al-Islam conducted its own investigations without intervention of the Unified Judiciary Council. Majdi N. had no information.  

Prosecutor Thouault said that the prosecution did not question the fact that Majdi N. left Ghouta on May 28, 2013, but noted omissions in the PowerPoint presented by the Defense listing all of Majdi N.’s movements, notably related to travel to Syria. Prosecutor Thouault then listed several documents that proved Majdi N.’s presence in Syria until 2016 and asked if he indeed came back to Syria from time to time, which Majdi N. confirmed. Prosecutor Thouault further asked if Majdi N. was indeed present in Ghouta for several interviews he gave to Arab TV channels, and the Accused alluded to a mistake by the journalists. Several documents in the case file pointed to Majdi N.’s awareness of the possibility of entering Ghouta through tunnels, and the Accused repeated he never came back there after May 28, 2013, and never saw any tunnel.  

Prosecutor Thouault noted that Majdi N. resigned from Jaysh Al-Islam in two stages, first from his duties as spokesperson in August 2016, and then from all his duties in a tweet dated August 2017. She asked the Accused what the true reasons for his resignation were. Majdi N. responded that several reasons explained his decision, such as, among others, Jaysh Al-Islam’s discrimination between people from Ghouta and from northern Syria, and administrative reasons, i.e. a lack of command and a growing disorganization that put Jaysh Al-Islam in a weakened position facing the regime. Prosecutor Thouault noted that after his resignation, Majdi N. remained an intermediary to release Druze hostages held by Jabhat Al-Nusra, which the Accused confirmed.  

The Defense said that Majdi N. was not feeling well and requested that he consult a doctor. Proceedings were suspended at 8:32 PM and resumed the next morning on May 23, 2025. 

Defense Counsel’s Questioning of Majdi N. 

Majdi N. said he did not know how much funding his actions as spokesperson brought Jaysh Al-Islam. When questioned about redistribution of funding within the group, Majdi N. testified that he had no say in this matter. Regarding child recruitment and the assumption that Majdi N.’s charisma could have attracted young people, the Accused responded that he rarely appeared on videos, because it was not his personality.  

Majdi N. said that a spokesperson had to be informed about military operations and added that having been present in an operation center did not constitute a war crime. Otherwise, Majdi N. believed, NATO would also have to be charged with similar accusations. Concerning [the video] in which he announced the attacks on Damascus, the Accused confirmed that he believed it to be a legal operation, since they were targeting security services.  

Counsel Ruiz inquired about the intensity of Majdi N.’s activities as spokesperson, and the Accused replied that he spent around six hours a day on this task, which included answering questions, transferring messages, etc. Counsel Ruiz requested a video be displayed in Court, which showed a session of the scuba diving training that Majdi N. said to have led. Majdi N. commented that the objective was to show the regime that men could enter Syria via Turkish borders, and the regime doubled surveillance on military ports of the Syrian coast. Counsel Ruiz noted the mention by F13 of riding lessons and training in swimming pools, which seemed unlikely to Majdi N. 

Shifting to Geneva Call, Counsel Ruiz asked if the fact that no agreement was signed with Jaysh Al-Islam meant that no cooperation existed with the NGO. Majdi N. explained that the cooperation was twofold: training in international humanitarian law and negotiation on an agreement. The Accused had no detail about the reason why the agreement was not signed by Jaysh Al-Islam and added that only one group signed it. Majdi N. stressed that he was the intermediary with Geneva Call and was passionate about this subject.  

Counsel Kempf requested the projection of a video which alluded to the fact that concepts of international humanitarian law are addressed in Sharia law, such as protection of civilians, children, and women in conflict. Majdi N. confirmed that international humanitarian law and Sharia law do not necessarily oppose each other. Presiding Judge Lavergne asked if the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) conducted an extensive analysis on the compatibility between international humanitarian law and Sharia law. Counsel Kempf retorted that Sharia law was extremely poorly known in France but was an important reference in the Muslim world.  

At the request of Counsel Kempf, two documents signed by Majdi N. authorizing people to travel to certain locations were displayed in Court. Counsel Kempf asked if Majdi N. had a certain power that manifested through these signatures. Majdi N. denied, explaining that after he left Ghouta, he did not have the power to take this type of action and gave no instructions to fighters to go to this or that place.  

Counsel Kempf explained that complicity required to have an effective command or control over people who committed the alleged crimes, or to not have taken any measures after having learned of the crimes. Counsel Kempf asked what Majdi N. did when he learned about a crime, and the Accused responded that he published a statement to refer these individuals to the justice system.  

Counsel Kempf asked if the term “Ashbal” [i.e. Lion Cubs] found on a schedule of a Jaysh Al-Islam training camp designated minors under 18 or new recruits. Majdi N. responded it designated new recruits who just arrived in a camp. Counsel Kempf noted that in the same document, many other words were used to designate the recruits, such as trainee متدربين, combatants مجاهدين, etc.  

Counsel Kempf asked the Accused if forming a rebel group to fight against Bashar Al-Assad was a war crime, Majdi N. denied. The Accused also confirmed that recruitment of young people was frequent in any army in the world.  

Regarding his travel out of Ghouta on May 28, 2013, Majdi N. explained how he walked with [redacted name], F88 for 12 hours to avoid the regime’s barracks and arrived in Eastern Al-Qalamoun القلمون, where they stayed for around a week or ten days. Civil Parties’ Counsel Bailly noted that F88 was the cousin of Abu Issam Al-Buwaydani, Jaysh Al-Islam’s leader who had just been arrested in the United Arab Emirates. 

Counsel Kempf requested the projection of five videos of statements by F89, F90, F91, F92, and an uncle of Majdi N. The first person, [redacted name], F89 was a Syrian activist and stated that he first met Majdi N. in April 2015 in Idlib, Syria, and visited him in Turkey in October 2015 after the Accused had moved there. He certified that they built a relationship based on their common opposition to Salafism. F89 asserted that Majdi N. was not in Ghouta anymore when Razan Zeitouneh was kidnapped. The second person, [redacted name], F90, was Commander of Jaysh Al-Islam in the northern sector. He stated that he deserted from the Syrian army with Majdi N. and went to Ghouta. F89 stated that Majdi N. joined him in northern Syria in May 2013 and added that the Accused came from a respectable family. The third person, [redacted name], F91, worked in a hospital in northern Syria and saw Majdi N. there around mid-2013. F91 stated that Majdi N. had no activities related to terrorism or extremist groups, was open-minded, and rejected all forms of violence. In the fourth video, [redacted name], F92, stated that he met Majdi N. in Maskanah, in the Aleppo region, in mid-2013. After that, the Accused reportedly left to Hatay, Turkey, where he created a media center. F92 joined him to work as a writer. F92 asserted that Majdi N. was solely spokesperson of Jaysh Al-Islam. In the last video, Majdi N.’s uncle declared that Majdi N. informed him that he was in northern Syria around mid-2013 and then left for Turkey.  

The Defense then presented a document that listed and dated all of Majdi N.’s movements between May 2013, after he left Ghouta, and the summer of 2016, when he resigned from Jaysh Al-Islam. Counsel Kempf asserted that this, among other evidence, showed that Majdi N. was not in Ghouta during the period when the alleged crimes were perpetrated. Majdi N. claimed that after he left Ghouta, it was not possible for him to know if crimes were committed because he knew nobody there beside members of Jaysh Al-Islam. As such, Majdi N. said that he could not have heard about the protests in support of detainees of Adra Al-Omaliya in Damascus. Counsel Kempf added that the video shared by [redacted name], W15 on social media about hostages from Adra Al-Omaliya held by Jaysh Al-Islam had been seen only 14 times, and Majdi N. said it was possible that he did not see it, just like another tweet by [redacted name], W14.  

Proceedings were suspended at 12:27 PM. 

___________________________

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