Inside the Rafik A. Trial #1: Opening of the Trial: Allegations, Denials, and Competing Narratives

TRIAL OF RAFIK A.

District Court the Hague - The Hague, The Netherlands

Trial Monitoring Summary #1 

Hearing Dates: April 8 & 9, 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 Rafik A. trial are a result of a partnership between the Syria Justice and Accountability Centre and the Criminal Justice Clinic at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

SJAC’s 1^st trial monitoring report details days 1 and 2 of the trial of Rafik A. in the Hague, the Netherlands. On the first trial day, the Presiding Judge questioned the Accused extensively regarding his background and alleged involvement with the Syrian National Defense Forces (NDF). This included his role as a court clerk in Syria, his alleged loyalty to the Assad regime, purported membership in the NDF, and his alleged activities as an interrogator for the NDF. The examination further addressed claims that the Accused had been detained or kidnapped, as well as serious allegations of sexual violence against female detainees at an NDF facility. The Accused denied all allegations, maintaining that the case against him had been fabricated as retaliation for incriminating information he claims to possess. In support of the allegations, several documents bearing the NDF logo and the Accused’s name were presented. The Accused asserted that these documents were false. Additional evidence included photographs showing the Accused in uniform and carrying weapons. According to the Presiding Judge, police geolocation analysis suggested that these images were taken at an NDF site. The Accused denied ever being present at such locations.

On the second day of this trial week, many of the complaints regarding sexual and physical torture against the Accused were discussed at length. The testimonies of witnesses were put before him. Many of the details overlapped between the varying testimonies, and the dates mentioned by victims and witnesses were supported by Facebook posts around the time of their detention. One witness mentioned identifying features of the Accused’s intimates which were later corroborated by the police. In January 2014, a list of 170 people who were detained in Salamiyah, was published on an online web page. The names of at least three witnesses were identified on that list. The Accused denied the authenticity of the list. The Accused was asked repeatedly by the Prosecutors how he obtained information, such as personal details of witnesses he claimed never to have met. The Accused kept referring to the interview he gave to the police and did not provide further information as to how he obtained such information. He expressed concern that his testimony with the police had not been adequately translated and told the Court to listen to the original audio recordings. Often, he had visited locations discussed in his capacity as an officer at the local court, as he examined the bodies after there had been an incident.

Day 1 – April 8, 2026

On this trial day, the proceedings started at 9:24 AM before the Meervoudige Kamer of the District Court in The Hague. The Presiding Judge opened the session by welcoming those present and verifying the identity of the Accused, confirming his name and date of birth.

To ensure accessibility, interpretation services were arranged. Five interpreters were present in the courtroom: Two Arabic interpreters and two English interpreters for the livestream. As the Accused speaks only Arabic, he was assisted by an additional dedicated interpreter. Additionally, headphones were made available to attendees who did not speak Dutch.

The Presiding Judge noted that the Plaintiffs were attending the hearing via livestream. Due to the sensitive nature of the alleged crimes, the nine Plaintiffs will be referred to by assigned letters rather than by their names throughout the proceedings.

The agenda for the day focused on the interrogation of the Accused, Rafik A., regarding the facts of the case. The Court indicated that judgment is scheduled to be delivered on June 9, 2026. At the request of the Presiding Judge, the Prosecution provided an overview of the charges. The Accused faces 25 charges relating to acts allegedly committed in 2013 and 2014 in Salamiyah, Syria. These charges include torture, sexual violence, and rape, classified as crimes against humanity. During this overview, the Accused interrupted the Prosecution, stating that he did not wish for the charges to be translated, as he did not want to hear them. The Presiding Judge intervened and clarified that hearing the charges is an essential part of the proceedings, and the Accused is required to listen.

Before moving to the substantive part of the proceedings, the Court addressed several procedural matters. First, the Prosecution submitted a request to amend the charges to include the offence of exposing persons to the torture of others.

***  

[10-minutes-break]  

***

The Court granted the Prosecution’s request, holding that the proposed amendment concerned the same factual complex and did not alter the nature or scope of the case. Second, the Defense requested that witness S. be summoned to testify at the hearing. The Prosecution opposed this request, stating that the Defense had already exercised its right to examine the witness. Furthermore, they held that the testimony given by S. was reliable as it was audio recorded and corroborated by the testimonies of A. and J. The Court issued a break to discuss the Defense’s request.

***  

[5-minutes-break]  

***

Following a short recess, the Court delivered its decision on the Defense’s request to summon witness S. The request was denied. The Court held that the Defense’s right to examine witnesses had been sufficiently safeguarded. In particular, the Defense had been afforded the opportunity to submit questions to be put to witness S., despite not being physically present during the questioning. The Accused then asked for a bathroom break.

***  

[5-minutes-break]  

***

After the Accused returned, the Presiding Judge commenced the substantive part of the proceedings by asking Rafik A. what he considered to be the most important aspect of these proceedings. Rafik A. responded that it was the opportunity to tell his side of the story. The family of the Accused was not present at the proceedings. When asked about this by the Presiding Judge, the Accused stated that he did not want anyone present and that even his lawyers had been imposed on him by the Dutch State.

Following this, the Presiding Judge explained that in the Netherlands it is not customary for witnesses to be heard during the proceedings, as their statements are already included in the written case file. The purpose of the Court hearing is to discuss the most important aspects of the written dossier. He further stated that the Accused could expect to receive questions not only from the Court but also from the Prosecution. The Presiding Judge requested that the Accused keep his answers concise, noting that the Accused had already been questioned by the police over multiple days and that those statements were included in the case file. Finally, the Presiding Judge informed the Accused that he might interrupt him and ask him to shorten his responses, not due to a lack of interest, but in the interest of time, and asked whether the Accused understood this.

The Accused confirmed that he understood but noted that he first wished to make a statement. He declared that his name was Rafik A., that he was originally from Salamiyah, Syria, and that he was [redacted information] [ethnic-religious affiliation]. He stated that he did not hold a title or rank, unlike members of the National Defense Forces (NDF), and that he considered himself a prisoner of war (POW) in the Netherlands.

At that point, the Presiding Judge interrupted the Accused due to individuals in the public gallery filming the proceedings. After issuing a warning, the Presiding Judge addressed the Accused and stated that, as he understood it, the Accused was claiming that the case had been fabricated against him by Dutch international lawyers and that he could not have committed such acts, as they would be contrary to the [redacted information] way of life. The Accused responded that he stood fully by the statements he had made during police questioning, but that the translation was not word-for-word.

The Presiding Judge then turned to review the case file and noted that the information to be discussed could be sensitive. The Accused interrupted, asking whether he would not even be given five minutes to tell his story. The Presiding Judge reiterated that the Accused would have the opportunity to respond to questions, but that the present proceedings were not intended for the Accused to deliver detailed statements.

The Presiding Judge proceeded to inquire whether it was correct that, in addition to being [redacted information], the Accused also belonged to the religious group of the [redacted information]. The Accused confirmed this. He was subsequently asked how important his religion had been to him while living in Salamiyah, to which he asserted that it had been central to his life. After this, the Accused was questioned about his daily life. The Presiding Judge noted that the Accused worked as a court clerk and spoke to witnesses and suspects, primarily in relation to homicide cases. In response, the Accused held up a document allegedly confirming his position as a court clerk. It was affirmed that the Accused quit working as a court clerk in 2019. The Presiding Judge then asked the Accused to confirm a prior statement that he had been part of an independent commission. In cases involving deceased persons, the Accused would accompany the judge and the forensic doctor. The Accused confirmed this.

When asked whether he performed additional duties as a court clerk, for example during court proceedings, the Accused denied. The Presiding Judge remarked that, in earlier questioning, the Accused had stated that he worked as a court clerk more broadly and did not only attend crime scenes but also interrogations. The Accused replied that he had not changed any of his statements since the proceedings at the IND [Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service] and that any discrepancies might be the result of a translation error. He proceeded to explain that the role of a court clerk in Syria differs from that in the Netherlands. According to the Accused, every civil servant may be regarded as a clerk and can be assigned to different functions. He stated that he had been selected by the Minister of Justice to be involved in specific cases, which is why he was always present with the judge and the public prosecution office. He explained that they were required to go wherever a body was located, whether at a hospital or elsewhere. His role was to provide explanations regarding the body, upon which further decisions would be based. He concluded by emphasizing that he had not altered his statements.

Moving on, the Presiding Judge noted that the Accused had previously stated that his imam instructed followers to always support the government. The Accused denied having made such a statement and attributed it to a translation error. In response, the Presiding Judge inquired whether the Accused had been loyal to the government. The Accused replied that he had never been loyal to the government, but only to the imam.

Turning to the civil war in Syria in 2011, the Presiding Judge questioned the Accused regarding his stance toward the Assad regime. The Accused did not provide a direct answer, prompting the Presiding Judge to repeat the question several times. Ultimately, the Presiding Judge observed that the case file contained indications that the Accused had opposed the regime, including a recorded phone call in which he insulted Assad. However, the Presiding Judge also noted the existence of text messages suggesting the opposite, namely, that the Accused was loyal to the regime. The Accused contested this interpretation, asserting that the text messages had been mistranslated. He maintained that the messages reflected his awareness that he was being suspected of loyalty to the regime, rather than demonstrating that he himself was, in fact, loyal. The Accused was then confronted with another text message, sent to his uncle in 2011, in which he stated that he had met Assad. The Accused denied this, explaining that a message had been circulating suggesting that he had been part of a delegation, but that he had, in fact, never been present.

Next, the Presiding Judge addressed the issue of violence against civilians in Syria and asked what the Accused had observed of such violence in Salamiyah. The Accused maintained that reports of violence against civilians were not applicable to Salamiyah. The Presiding Judge then noted that protests had taken place in Salamiyah and inquired about the Accused’s views on these protests. The Accused responded that, as a civil servant, he was not permitted to participate in such protests, but that the protesters and organizers were his friends. In response, the Presiding Judge referred to a statement by [redacted name]., W1, who claimed to have seen the Accused suppressing protests by physically assaulting protesters. The Accused denied having been present at the protests. The Presiding Judge further asserted that S. had also stated that he had seen the Accused suppressing protesters. The Accused responded that S was a criminal and a liar. The Presiding Judge then referred to an additional witness statement alleging that the Accused had guarded members of the Shabiha. The Accused denied this allegation. Another statement, given by [redacted name], W2, similarly claimed that the Accused had been involved in suppressing protests.

The Presiding Judge continued by noting that individuals who supported the regime allegedly reported themselves to people’s committees. These individuals were expected to act locally as the “eyes and ears” of the Intelligence Services and to suppress demonstrations. According to the Presiding Judge, such committees were also active in Salamiyah. He then asked whether the Accused had been involved in these activities. The Accused denied any involvement, claiming that all such information was false and had been disseminated to mislead the media. He further asserted that no such activities had taken place in Salamiyah. When the Presiding Judge repeated the question, the Accused again denied being part of any people’s committee or having any involvement with the Intelligence Services.

Accused was then confronted with a text message exchange between him and [redacted name], F1, whom the police identified as the former head of the Military Intelligence Services. In the exchange, the Accused stated that a certain family had been dealt with. The Accused argued that this was merely a conversation between friends, and that neither was in a position of authority over the other. He denied that F1 had been the head of Military Intelligence, claiming instead that he played only a minor role within the military. Following this, the Presiding Judge referred to the testimony of [redacted name], W3, who stated that the Accused had been an informant throughout his life. W3 testified that the Accused regularly visited the restaurant where he worked, often together with F1, whom he identified as the head of Military Intelligence Services. W3 further testified that the Accused was responsible for arrests and releases. The Presiding Judge noted that this account was corroborated by the testimony of F. The Accused denied these allegations.

Moving on, the Presiding Judge read a report concerning the NDF. The report described the NDF as a force composed of local civilians who enforced rules in collaboration with the military. This arrangement was attributed to a shortage of manpower within the military and was intended to suppress protests against the regime. According to the report, the NDF received weapons and vehicles from the military and underwent training provided by Hezbollah. It further stated that the NDF was involved in looting and kidnappings, and that it operated under the direction of the Intelligence Services. Additionally, the report noted that the head of the Islamic council in Salamiyah was loyal to the government and that the regime expected cooperation with the local NDF. The Accused claimed that the report was inaccurate and that none of the described activities were taking place in Salamiyah. In response to the Presiding Judge’s question as to whether he was asserting that there was no NDF present in Salamiyah, the Accused maintained that the NDF did not exist there until October 2013. The Presiding Judge noted that the reports indicated otherwise, stating that the NDF had already been active in Salamiyah prior to October 2013.

Subsequently, the Presiding Judge questioned whether the Accused, as a court clerk, came into contact with the NDF. The Accused answered that this was not the case. The Presiding Judge then recalled that the Accused had previously stated that he got instructions from the NDF to go to crime scenes. The Accused answered that he was not the one to receive direct instructions from the NDF, but that he got instructions from the higher ups at his job. The Presiding Judge proceeded to address the Accused’s statement in which he had held that sometimes during interrogations, a person from the NDF would stand in the corner and that he would also come into contact with the NDF when they arrested somebody. The Accused reiterated that he was only present at crime scenes, where there is a dead body. The Presiding Judge inquired whether these dead bodies included ones that were caused by the NDF. The Accused answered that ensuing the investigation, it was clear that some of the bodies were linked to the NDF but repeated that he had no contact with the NDF. In response to the question of whether the Accused was ever pressured by the NDF, the Accused claimed that he was pressured, and that he wrote a letter in order to protect himself and his family from the NDF.

The Presiding Judge continued by addressing a statement in which the Accused held that he was a civil servant from 8 AM to 3 PM, but that he was Rafik A. after that. The Presiding Judge held that the Accused had sufficient time to undertake activities as part of the NDF after 3 PM, and that there are several testimonies that say that the Accused did so. He questioned whether the Accused was a proponent of the regime, and if he had joined the NDF. The Accused responded by highlighting that he was available 24 hours a day, solely for the public prosecutor’s office. The Presiding Judge proceeded to confront the Accused with the testimonies of Mrs. E., R., W2 and A. who all testified that the Accused was involved in several activities related to the NDF. The Accused denied the allegations.

Moving on, the Presiding Judge brought up a chat message between the Accused and the ex-head of the Military Intelligence Services which related to an office of NDF, with the text “in our time”. The Presiding Judge asked what the Accused had meant by this message, and whether he meant in his time with the NDF. The Accused denied, but that he could not remember the message and that he perhaps meant his time in Syria. The Presiding Judge further noted that an examination of the Accused’s phone revealed that he had contact with ex NDF-members, namely [redacted name], F2, and [redacted name], F3. First, the Accused noted that the names were mispronounced by the Court. Second, the Accused stated that F2 was his wife’s nephew but that he had no contact with him. Regarding F3, he asserted that he knew him as a teacher and a restaurant owner in Salamiyah.

Additionally, the Presiding Judge recalled that witnesses have testified not only to the Accused’s membership to the NDF, but also that the Accused was an interrogator for the NDF. He thereby relied on the testimonies of [redacted name], W4, who identified the Accused as his interrogator, and W1. The Accused replied that the witnesses were lying. The Presiding Judge proceeded by introducing nine more witness testimonies that identify the Accused as an interrogator for the NDF. In response, the Accused again denied the allegation. He stated that the entire case had been fabricated against him, that he only had 24 hours in a day and questioned how much he could really do in that time. He claimed that the reason he is in prison is because of what he knows about crimes others have committed. The Presiding Judge questioned whether the Accused was really of the opinion that all these people have conspired against him and are all lying. The Accused reiterated that this case was truly fabricated against him and that all the witnesses are pawns being used by others. He asserted that there were only two or three actual victims in this case.

***  

[45-minutes-break]  

***

Following the break, the Presiding Judge asked the Accused whether he had anything to eat. The Accused answered that he did not get to eat, but that he did not want to embarrass the Court. Furthermore, the Presiding Judge noted the concern that the Arabic names were hard to follow due to the pronunciation. The Prosecution emphasized that they would make a list of the Arabic names available tomorrow.

Moving on, the Presiding Judge provided the other parties the opportunity to pose questions. Only the Prosecution took this opportunity. First, the Prosecution questioned which two to three victims the Accused was referring to in his statement shortly before the break. The Accused reluctantly answered that they are victims of the group, and that if he tomorrow says who killed who, there would be two to three people who have nothing to do with this. The Prosecution repeated their question, asking the Accused to name the two or three victims he is referring to. The Accused responded that he would communicate this through his lawyers.

Second, the Prosecution inquired about the Accused’s statement that he was a civil servant from 8 AM to 3 PM but that he was Rafik A. after. In response, the Accused reiterated that he had to work 24 hours a day. He referred to the registration systems of the national hospitals in Salamiyah and claimed that these would prove that the witnesses were lying about his involvement. The Prosecution asked why he would make such a statement if he worked 24 hours, to which the Accused retorted that he had to be available 24 hours, in case he was called up to work. The Prosecution proceeded to question how often he was called up. The Accused replied that, after March 25, 2011, it was daily.

Third, the Prosecution questioned what the Accused meant by his statement that the NDF was only in Salamiyah from October 2013 onwards. The Accused answered that he had hoped that the Judges would have asked him this question, but that he would still answer the question. He recalled that this was before [redacted name], F4, came to Salamiyah. The Presiding Judge interrupted the Accused, noting that the Accused had already stated this during the police questioning and that it was already included in the case file.

Continuing, the Prosecution inquired into the relationship between the Accused and [redacted name], F5. The Accused responded that they were from the same neighborhood and alleged that F5 was pressured by the Netherlands through the spreading of rumors about him. When asked what information he based this on, the Accused responded that F5 had told him this, and that there were rumors spread about him that he was a part of the Shabiha. The Prosecution further noted that the Accused had stated that R. was a proponent of the regime and questioned whether F5 belonged to the same family as R. The Accused affirmed this. Lastly, the Prosecution addressed a statement in which the Accused held that F2 and [redacted name], F6, were his drivers. The Accused replied that he never had drivers.

After the Prosecution finished its questioning, the Presiding Judge turned to address sixteen photographs submitted by D., who had traveled to Salamiyah and gathered several NDF documents. The Accused had previously claimed that all the documents were fabricated and dated from after 2014, or even after the regime’s fall. The Presiding Judge asked whether he maintained this position, and the Accused confirmed that he did. The Presiding Judge noted that the NDF documents were submitted to the Syria Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC) who confirmed their authenticity. One document, dated August 15, 2013, identifies the Accused as a militant and instructs him to report to the NDF for a meeting. The Accused claimed that the document was false. Another document, dated September 15, 2013, concerned a handwritten letter by the Accused, in which he wrote that he must apologize for his inability to work with the NDF due to health issues. The letter was signed by the Accused. He acknowledged that the letter was his but claimed that the translation was incorrect. According to him, it in fact says that he intended to protect himself and his family from the NDF. The Presiding Judge asked whether he still maintained this position. The Accused affirmed his position.

The Presiding Judge continued by stating that D. had downloaded the documents from the laptop of F3 who was keeping a list of NDF members. The Accused’s name was included in the list. The Presiding Judge asked the Accused how he explained this. In response, the Accused challenged D.’s reliability and denied that his name appeared on the list. An additional document imposing coercive measures against the Accused was presented. The Accused claimed that the document had been mistranslated.

Another document was presented, which the Presiding Judge described as a security assessment concerning the Accused. It stated that he had a poor reputation, was corrupt, had been interrogated at a detention center, and had been arrested by the military on suspicion of sexual abuse before being released in June. The Accused denied these allegations entirely, arguing that they were untrue. He added that he had returned to his work with the permission of the Security Services and that he would bring a document the following day confirming that he was allowed to resume his duties. The following document bore the NDF logo and was dated June 18, with the year unclear but ending in a 4. It concerned the distribution of weapons in Salamiyah to NDF members. The Accused’s name appeared on the list in position eight, with his function identified as a former interrogator. The police indicated that the document most likely dated from 2014, considering 2004 and 2024 unlikely. The Presiding Judge noted that the Accused had claimed the list was incorrect, and the document forged and asked whether he maintained that position. The Accused confirmed that he did.

Having reviewed the documents, the Presiding Judge turned to photographs of the Accused. First, a photo was shown depicting the Accused holding a gun. The Presiding Judge asked him to confirm that it was indeed him in the photo and that it had been taken at his house, which the Accused confirmed. The Presiding Judge then asked why he had a gun, to which the Accused responded that he was allowed to take a photo with a gun, comparing it to people taking pictures with a car.

The Presiding Judge noted that there were additional photos showing the Accused carrying (automatic) weapons and again asked him to confirm that it was him in those images. The Accused confirmed this. The Presiding Judge further observed that the photos were taken on August 1, 2013 and pointed out that the Accused had previously stated that he did not own any weapons, claiming instead that the weapons belonged to militants who were guests at his house. The Presiding Judge questioned the nature of the Accused’s relationship, as a court clerk, with the military police and why they were present at his home. In response, the Accused stated that he worked with the prosecutor’s office and that guests would sometimes eat at his house. He explained that it was common for soldiers to eat at people’s homes, as many were not stationed in the areas where they lived.

Additionally, the Presiding Judge recalled that, according to the police, the weapons carried by the Accused in the photos matched those used by the NDF and were his own. The Accused, however, maintained that the photos were taken within a span of five minutes, that he was not wearing an NDF uniform, and that they were taken on a day of celebration of the military. The Presiding Judge then questioned why the Accused, as a court clerk, was present at such a celebration. The Accused responded that it was a national day, that civil servants were required to attend, and that many people were present. The Presiding Judge noted that only the Accused was visible in the photos and asked why he was wearing the uniform. The Accused replied that this was normal in Syria and that he was not the only one who took such pictures.

Following this, the Presiding Judge gave the parties the opportunity to pose questions. The Prosecution asked questions regarding the letter written by the Accused and whom he was referring to when he mentioned terrorist detainees or demonstrators. The Prosecution repeated these questions several times, however, the Accused refused to answer.

Seeing that there were no more questions, the Presiding Judge moved on to the next topic, namely the locations where several witnesses were detained by the NDF. F. was detained on October 18, 2013 at a farm situated along the highway close to Salamiyah. F. also testified to having been detained with [redacted name], F7, H., and [redacted name] F8, and that he was arrested in order to coerce his brother D. to surrender himself. Furthermore, D. testified to having been detained at the same location as F. from October 20, 2013 to October 24, 2013. D. had received coordinates of the location from someone at the NDF and recognized the farm. The Presiding Judge questioned whether the Accused was an interrogator for the NDF at this location. The Accused denied this, stating that the location was not the NDF’s, but rather a location where Islamist extremist groups came together.

Subsequently, a video recorded by F. of the alleged NDF location was shown In Court. The Presiding Judge noted that this was the location where F. and D. have testified to having been detained and tortured by the NDF. A video sent in by R. concerned the same location. The Presiding Judge then asked whether the Accused had ever been to the location. The Accused answered that he had never been there and argued that the witnesses had also never been there. When questioned how he knew that they had not been there, he did not have a conclusive answer. The Presiding Judge then confronted the Accused with the police’s conclusion, based on geolocation data, that it was highly likely that the earlier mentioned the photos of the Accused were taken at the alleged NDF location. However, the Accused still denied this and argued that he would communicate something to the Court through his lawyers.

Moving on, the Presiding Judge addressed a document that pointed in the direction that the Accused was not part of the NDF. This document concerned a list of names and phone numbers of NDF members in Salamiyah. The Accused’s name was not on the list. The police, however, had noted that the document was not dated and that it could be from after 2014, thus after the kidnapping or the arrest of the Accused.

***  

[15-minutes-break]  

***

After the break, the Defense Counsel requested five minutes to speak to the Accused about something. The Accused specifically requested for the police not to be present during this discussion. This resulted in the public having to leave the Court room again.

***  

[5-minutes-break]  

***

After the breaks, the Presiding Judge briefly addressed additional alleged NDF locations: the carpet factory, which the Accused acknowledged being aware of; the farm or villa, which he stated he did not know; and a building of technical facilities near a mountain. The Presiding Judge then asked whether this last location was where the Accused himself had been detained. The Accused replied that it was near the place where he had been held.

The Presiding Judge then gave the other parties an opportunity to pose questions. The Prosecution used this opportunity to ask whether, when the Accused claimed that a document was false, he meant that its contents were untrue or that the document itself had been forged. The Accused responded that the content of the documents was false. Additionally, the Prosecution questioned from when on the Islamist extremist groups had occupied the alleged NDF location and whether this had already been the case in 2013. The Accused responded that he did not know but mentioned that the video clearly indicated the presence pf Islamist extremist groups. The Accused based this assessment solely on the video of the location.

Shifting to the next topic, the Presiding Judge addressed the Accused’s arrest, or, in the Accused’s view, his kidnapping by the NDF. The Presiding Judge noted that the Accused’s primary position is that the case against him has been fabricated as an act of revenge. The Accused had previously stated before the IND that on February 11, 2014 he had been asked to go to a crime scene with [redacted name], F6, and F2 after which he was allegedly kidnapped for 114 days. According to the Accused, this was because he had discovered that the NDF had been involved in killings and kidnappings. He further stated that he was initially taken to a mountainous area, where he sustained injuries to his back and left eye. The Accused recalled that he was subsequently moved to another mountainous area in [redacted location]. He further claimed that he is now deaf in one ear and has lost vision in his left eye. He remembered that he was released in June 2014. The Presiding Judge noted that the Accused appeared to have made differing statements before the IND and the police and asked him whether he had in fact been detained by the NDF or not. The Accused responded that he stood by his statements and had maintained the same account throughout all questionings. He further asserted that any differences were due to the way in which his words had been translated. Additionally, he noted that he was sure that the NDF was behind his kidnapping, specifically F6 and F2.

The Presiding Judge asked whether the alleged events were connected to the Accused possessing incriminating information about the NDF. In response, the Accused remarked that anyone in Syria with such information would become a target. When asked why the NDF would have anything to fear from him, given their apparent freedom to act, the Accused replied that the NDF could not act without limits, and that what applied to the rest of Syria did not necessarily apply to Salamiyah.

The Presiding Judge then highlighted that the Accused appeared to believe that those accusing him in the present case had been instructed to do so by the NDF. The Accused confirmed this, adding that they had been relieved of their own crimes in exchange. The Presiding Judge further inquired whether the Accused had fled to the Netherlands because of the NDF. The Accused responded that he had fled because he was caught between two fires, and that if he were to reveal what he knew, it could trigger another civil war in Salamiyah.

The Presiding Judge continued to question whether he understood correctly that the Accused was claiming that all the Plaintiffs were conspiring against him by falsely accusing him of serious crimes. The Accused replied that there were no serious crimes and that the Plaintiffs were merely pawns. The Presiding Judge pointed out that there were nine Plaintiffs and numerous witnesses and asked whether the Accused truly believed that all of them had testified falsely. The Accused confirmed that he did and added that it was clear who was orchestrating this. When asked to identify this alleged orchestrator, the Accused replied that there were terrorists in Europe supported by lawyers. The Presiding Judge responded that he assumed the Accused was referring to human rights lawyer [redacted name], F9. He acknowledged that several witnesses had spoken to that lawyer, though most had not.

Lastly, the Presiding Judge turned to the reason why the Accused was detained by the NDF, namely due to the sexual abuse of one of the detained women. The Presiding Judge outlined that the Accused had initially been detained at a National Defense facility, after which he was transferred to Damascus. He was subsequently released and permitted to return to work, although he was allegedly no longer accepted by his colleagues. According to the Presiding Judge, the Accused then requested a leave of absence, which was denied, after which he chose to leave the country. The Accused interrupted the Presiding Judge arguing that this was untrue, and that he would not be released if he was truly suspected of rape. The Presiding Judge observed that the Accused was getting agitated and reminded him that he would get the opportunity to respond.

The Presiding Judge continued to the testimony of J. who testified that the Accused had told one of the female detainees that she had to join him to the interrogation room, after which they heard the woman scream. Shortly after this event, the Accused was arrested as the woman had reported him. Similarly, S. testified to having heard the women in the cell crying and yelling “let her go”. S. further recalled that they tried to force open their cell door but that the Accused approached them in his underwear. S. also testified that the NDF wanted to get rid of the Accused and that he was arrested while he was working for them. A. also provided a testimony of a similar nature. The Accused responded that these allegations were entirely false and presented an item he claimed would exonerate him.

Following this, The Presiding Judge gave the other parties an opportunity to pose questions. However, none were raised. He then closed the proceedings for the day.

The proceedings were adjourned at 4:42 PM

The next trial day would be on April 9, 2026, at 9:00 AM.

Day 2 – April 9, 2026

The second day of the proceedings started at 9:10 AM at the District Court in the Hague. The Presiding Judge started by reminding the Accused, Rafik A., that he was not obliged to answer questions. The Presiding Judge summarized the position of the Accused, namely that he had been falsely accused and denied any affiliation with the National Defense Forces (NDF). The Accused confirmed this position and expressed the wish not to hear the allegations against him. The Presiding Judge responded that whilst he understood that it might at times be difficult to hear the charges against him, he nonetheless had to be informed of all the allegations against him.

The Presiding Judge continued presenting the allegations of the dossier to the Accused. He started with Plaintiff M., who had been arrested six times by three different security forces for taking part in demonstrations against the Assad government. He had worked as a hairdresser and had been arrested along with his friend and taken to the headquarters of the NDF, which was located in a carpet factory. The Presiding Judge asked the Accused to confirm what he said yesterday, namely that he had been to this factory. The Accused commented that there was no carpet factory in Salamiyah, that it was more of a workshop and that this was not an NDF location. The Presiding Judge interrupted, noting that the NDF had indeed changed locations following an explosion. The Accused stressed that M. was lying and that he had been arrested due to a traffic accident and not because he critiqued the Assad regime. When asked how he knew this, the Accused did not give a direct answer. Rather, he referred to the untrustworthiness of the mother of the Plaintiff, who he claimed to turn on the heating in the summer, to discredit the Plaintiff.

The Presiding Judge stated that M. had been questioned three times and was hit whilst he was blindfolded. His interrogator had asked him about his sexual relations with his girlfriend and one of the interrogators, [redacted name], F10, had used the butt of his gun to hit him on the toes as well as against his anus. The Plaintiff had cried, and someone he later identified as the Accused told him to get a hold of himself. The Presiding Judge asked the Accused to clarify whether he had been an interrogator with the NDF. The Accused denied this fervently and reiterated that Plaintiff M. was a liar and the son of a liar. The Accused said that he himself had no reason to lie and reiterated his belief that he had been framed for the crimes of another. The Presiding Judge allowed the Accused to briefly elaborate on this. The Accused expressed concern that images of him had been spread online, which suggested that he was being tried before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Presiding Judge confirmed that on the previous day of the trial an individual had been asked to stop recording the trial and that these images may have been spread online.

Continuing with the details of the questioning, the Presiding Judge elaborated that the Plaintiff M. had been able to identify the Accused when he saw his photo online with his name underneath it. He had never met the Accused prior to this interrogation, but his friend and cellmate knew the Accused personally. The Plaintiff said that following the incident with the gun, he had dirtied himself and did not want anyone to touch him. The Accused responded that the Plaintiff was a liar who smoked marijuana and was potentially under the influence at the time of his testimony. The Accused had personally been to the carpet factory to investigate the corpses of the victims of the explosion. He claimed that an explosive car was planted there by [redacted name], F11. He once again denied that he had interrogated Plaintiff M.

The Presiding Judge turned to the circumstantial evidence, such as Facebook posts which expressed concern for M. and called for him to be released. The mother of Plaintiff M., E., had testified that when M. returned from detention his character had changed and there was a red and blue bruise on his foot. He often sat in a corner. M’s brother, [redacted name], W5, said that M. had been tortured and threatened. His clothes were wet from his urine, and he immediately went to the bathroom following his release. His psychic situation was bad, and M. had told W5 that he had been hit with the butt of a gun, causing him to limp. A clinical report from 2023 confirmed that Plaintiff M. was diagnosed with a serious depressive disorder as a direct result of the trauma he experienced in detention. The Accused reiterated that Plaintiff M. and his mother were lying and that they were members of the Communist Action Party and not to be trusted. When asked by the Presiding Judge why M. would falsely accuse him of torture, the Accused said that M. had never been detained and that the real target of the Court was not the Accused but F10. When pressed on this point, the Accused said that he did not know why M. was falsely accusing him.

The Prosecutors asked the Accused how he knew that Plaintiff M. was part of the Communist Action Party when he also claimed not to know him. The Accused said he had read this in the dossier. When asked what kind of a traffic accident had resulted in the arrest of M., the Accused referred to the statement given by M. The Prosecutors stressed that the statement given by M. did not refer to a traffic accident and the Accused claimed that this was due to a wrong translation.

The Presiding Judge continued with Plaintiff R., who claimed that the Accused had groped and hit her breasts, placed his penis in her mouth and raped her. The Accused denied these claims and said he had nothing to do with them. The Accused did not wish to use the word “deny” as this suggested to him some level of guilt. Plaintiff R. was detained on the first day of Ramadan, the July 10, 2013, by F10 and [redacted name], F12. They took her to the villa of the Kuwaiti man and blindfolded her. She was brought to one of two cells, where F6 told her that her interrogator was strict. She was brought to an office where someone suddenly hit her vagina. She was on the floor and felt a dog’s breath on her face. She described her interrogation as having two phases. The first involved hitting and the second was sexual assault. The Accused started to open the buttons of her jacket and fondled her breasts. When she pulled away, he stopped her with one hand and with the other he forcefully entered her vagina. She described that it was like him as reaching her ovaries. After he removed his hand, he told her that she wanted this because his fingers were wet. The Plaintiff described how those words stayed with her as she had no sexual experience prior to this.

At one point, the Accused forced the Plaintiff [note: the following part of the testimony is redacted to protect the privacy of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff described sexual violence and rape in details.] [redacted information].

Plaintiff R. also recalled the roles as follows: F10 found suspects, [redacted name], F13, oversaw the office, F6 was the clerk present in the office, and Rafik A. was the interrogator.

The Accused was given the opportunity to respond to the allegations by Plaintiff R. He referred to the statement he gave to the police and said he was hesitant to elaborate due to respect for the father and deceased husband of Plaintiff R. He said that Plaintiff R. fled Syria because she had brought shame to her family. When asked by the Prosecutor to explain what he meant, the Accused did not answer and referred to the audio recordings of his interview with the police. He did not believe the translated transcripts of his testimony were accurate.

The Presiding Judge elaborated on statements made by Plaintiff R. which led her to identify the Accused as the perpetrator of the sexual violence she experienced. Whilst being forced to give a blowjob, the Plaintiff could see under her blindfold. At that moment, the Plaintiff saw that the perpetrator’s penis was pink and there was a birthmark on the left side. She described wondering why she focused on these small details. Plaintiff R. also spoke on the phone with her friend [redacted name] S., when she was in [redacted location] and told him what happened. She told him her family must never find out what happened to her. She told S. that Rafik A. was the perpetrator, and that S. should keep his name in his wallet. Plaintiff R. had told him that she tried to [redacted information]. S. said that when Plaintiff R. called him, she was in a bad state. She told him that Rafik A. raped her and was the reason for why she left Syria. S. said that “she was broken but at the same time she wanted to do something.”

Again, the Accused responded that the allegations were baseless and claimed that he had a lot to say but that he would let his lawyers speak for him. The Prosecutors highlighted that Plaintiff R. had mentioned the detention and rape in her immigration hearing in [redacted location] on February [redacted time]. When asked how he knew the date that Plaintiff R. had left Syria, the Accused said it was a personal matter and questioned the relevance for this case. The Accused went on to question whether Plaintiff R. had shown respect to her husband or cried for him. He remarked that S. had cried many times whilst testifying and he had not been raped. The Presiding Judge had to interrupt to ask the Accused to keep his answer brief and not mention the full name of S.

***

[25-minute-break]

***

Following the break, the Court continued by recalling the allegations raised by Plaintiff O. The Presiding Judge detailed how she and others were taken in a bus to the farm of the Kuwaiti man and blindfolded. Upon arrival, she was hit on her cheek and her side with the butt of a gun. Plaintiff O. described how they were labelled as “the whores of terrorists.” While she was interrogated by the Accused, the Plaintiff recalled that she suspected that he abused the Alawite accent to mask his identity. In the first phase of the interrogation, there were two people. When Plaintiff O. asked why she had been brought there, her interrogator alleged that she wanted the freedom to whore around. He repeatedly hit her face and her breasts. Someone grabbed her nipples and pulled them painfully. One person present commented that this was what protesters did with each other. She was hit until she fell and was then pulled up by her hair. [Redacted information]. The rest was a black hole. She was repeatedly tasered. At one point the interrogator [redacted information]. Following her release, the areas around her genitals were severely bruised. In the second phase of the interrogation, she was dragged over the ground. There was blood on the ground, and the interrogator told her it was the blood of the rebels. She was later released [details of the release were unclear to the monitor].

Twenty or thirty days after her release, Plaintiff O. was at a swimming pool with her family near a restaurant in Salamiyah. Suddenly, she heard a voice behind her and her brother told her to stand up and turn around. There was a man speaking on the phone and she sensed that this was the man who had tortured her, though she could not be certain. She recalled that “all my senses were alert after I heard his voice.” When she asked her brother who the man was, he told her it was Rafik A. She did not see him again following that one time in the restaurant. He had a square face, a beard, and a round belly.

The Presiding Judge turned to details about what the Accused did when she was released. Plaintiff O. said she immediately took a shower. The Accused interrupted at this point to ask if she showered with or without chlorine. The Presiding judge responded that he was simply reading what was in the dossier. There were bruises on her body and marks of his hand on her breasts. The taser had left marks on her back. Her sister helped her in the bathroom and Plaintiff O. held her hands over her upper body. Her sister asked whether she had been tortured, and Plaintiff O. sent her sister away from the bathroom. Plaintiff O. did not want her family to see that she was ashamed.

Witness L., the sister of Plaintiff O., was in her home with her husband and children when she came home. L. remembered that her sister had lost weight, that her hair was dirty, and she stank. There were dark circles under her eyes and blood on her white shirt. Her voice was different. Witness L. recalled that she saw her sister sitting on a stool in the bathroom with her hands over her upper body. She had scars on her back and breasts. About the incident at the swimming pool, witness L. testified that O. heard a voice and without turning around she asked who the voice belonged to. She went completely pale. She would never forget the expression on her sister’s face when she heard the voice. Plaintiff O. told her sister that this was the voice of the person who had beaten her.

At this point, the Accused interrupted to ask if he could respond. The Presiding Judge allowed this. The Accused did not understand why he had not been asked questions about this part and said that he was very sensitive. The Presiding Judge asked the Accused whether he had committed the aforementioned acts. The Accused replied that Plaintiff O. had made a big mistake and that she was much smarter than this. Plaintiff O. knew him much better than he knew her and said that she sat on the back of his motorbike until she no longer needed it [ ركبت وراه حتى وصلته، ولمّا وصلت نزلت]. The Accused challenged Plaintiff O. directly to prove that he had been to a swimming pool after the death of his father in 2010. If she was successful, he would give her all his possessions.

The Presiding Judge stopped the Accused as he was becoming increasingly agitated and continued with the allegations made by Plaintiff O. When she was being interrogated, she was wearing the headband of her daughter. Her interrogator told her that he would get her daughter and subject her to the same treatment as her mother.

Turning to the publicly accessible evidence, a Facebook post from the July 14, 2013 confirmed that Plaintiff O. had been released from the Deir Shmil دير شميل detention centre. The Accused interrupted to say that everything the Plaintiff had said about him was untrue and that she knew him more than he knew her. The Presiding Judge responded that Plaintiff O. said this was not the case.

The Accused had previously told the police that he had had phone conversations with Plaintiff O. When this was presented to Plaintiff O. during her interview with the judge commissioner [rechter commisaris], she reportedly laughed hard. The Accused interrupted to say that Plaintiff O. was not allowed to laugh; this made him angry. The Presiding Judge responded that the Accused had no say in what Plaintiff O. was or was not allowed to say during a hearing.

The Prosecutor wanted to present the Accused with a statement Plaintiff O. made in 2014, where she named slightly different dates for her arrest. Plaintiff O. described her pain during the interrogation as “the worst ever.” She also heard three names: [redacted name], F13, [redacted name], F14, and Rafik A.

The Accused reiterated that Plaintiff O. had not seen anything and expressed concern with the way information was being presented. Especially as he is a foreigner being tried in the Netherlands, he feared his words were not being translated properly. He expressed that he was willing to give his life for Plaintiff O. The Presiding Judge stated that he understood the Accused wanted his dossier to be presented accurately and the Accused mentioned he did not know the dossier well and felt that the proceedings were clearly unjust.

The Prosecutor asked the Accused whether he knew the swimming pool Plaintiff O. had referred to in her previous statement. The Accused said that if she saw him with his wife and children, he would have been at a different location. He found it dubious that the Plaintiff sometimes referred to a swimming pool and sometimes to a restaurant. Additionally, the Accused swore to God that Plaintiff O. had embarrassed “us” in front of “the Europeans.”

The Prosecutor repeated her question, namely whether the Accused had been to the restaurant near the swimming pool after the death of his father. The Accused denied that he had ever been to a public place following the death of his father in November 2010. The Prosecutor also asked the Accused what he meant when said that Plaintiff O. sat on the back of his motorcycle “until she no longer needed it.” The Accused responded that this was an Arabic expression. The Prosecutor addressed a section of the dossier where the Accused had mentioned that rape did not occur in Salamiyah and that he had researched this and asked how he had done this. The Accused explained that he had been asked by the Minister of Justice to investigate abolishing article 548 of the Syrian Penal Code, which relates to “honor killings.” To do this, the Accused had to gather data over a period of ten years. He had done research in the Hama area.

The Presiding Judge interrupted the Accused and asked the Prosecutors whether they had other questions, and reminded the Accused to keep his answers brief. The Prosecutor, recalled the Accused’s police interview, asked him to elaborate on what he meant when he said that the sexual morals of Plaintiff O. differed 180 degrees with “our own.” The Accused argued that this was not what he had said, and lamented that he had no way of knowing, in case the translation was wrong. The Presiding Judge asked the Prosecutor to limit the scope of her questions to the allegations against the Accused rather than the moral integrity of the witness. The Prosecutor argued that the question was relevant as the Accused said that both Plaintiffs R. and O. had engaged in a secret relationship with someone else. The Prosecutor wondered whether this had something to do with their accusations against Rafik A. of sexual violence. The Accused answered that he did not say this and added that Plaintiffs R. and O. were good friends. The Prosecutor left it uncommented and posed no further questions.

***

[60-minute-break]

***

Following the break, the interpreter of the Accused had changed. One of the Judges then continued presenting the allegations concerning Plaintiffs A., J. and S. against the Accused. Plaintiff A. was [redacted information] years old when he was arrested after 20 NDF agents had stormed his house. He claimed that the reason for his arrest was to apply pressure on him, and he was told that his brother was a terrorist. He was put in a car, blindfolded, and his hands were tied. Plaintiff A. was brought to the farm of the Kuwaiti man. During his testimony, he described how he was hit with a rubber item until he lost consciousness. Plaintiff A. was brought with water jets [waterstralen]. The Judge asked whether the Accused wanted to add anything. The Accused contested the facts of the case and claimed that this event happened on December 20, 2013, in the afternoon as opposed to the evening. He said that this is what other witnesses confirmed in their statements.

The Judge asked the interpreters whether they could still follow. They asked him to speak at a slower pace. He continued and recalled that Plaintiff A. identified the people in the interrogation room. Rafik A. was in the center, and to his right was F13. He was being held by [redacted name], F15. Plaintiff A. claimed that the Accused had a leadership position and gave signs with his hand to set the tempo of the interrogation. The Plaintiff was tied up and lying on his side. He was hit over and over again. Another agent brought him from the interrogation room to a room where 30 people were being held. He sat on his knees, and four or five people were around him. He was hit on the back of his head and fainted. He was woken up with water. The beatings lasted until 5 in the morning and happened in periods of 30 minutes. After the end of the second interrogation, he realized that the beatings to his jaw had caused him to lose the crowns of his teeth. After the first day, he was no longer asked any questions and experienced only violence.

Plaintiff A. said F10 had arrested him, and [redacted name], F16, and [redacted name], F6, identified him. He claimed to have seen the Accused twice prior to his arrest. The Judge asked whether the Accused remembered seeing Plaintiff A. The Accused said he had never seen him, but he knew of him. The Accused said the full name of the Plaintiff, and the Judge interrupted to remind him that he was not permitted to use full names. When asked whether he had ever seen Plaintiff A. in court (in Salamiyah), the Accused said that up to this moment he still did not know him.

The Judge continued delving into the specific methods used by the interrogators. Plaintiff A. had said that the first day did not involve violence whereas the following days did. When the Accused put his hand down, this meant “continue” and he said, “hit him hard.” When he put his hand up, this meant “stop.” Plaintiff A. was slapped and hit with cables. The interrogations mainly took place at night, and he was stripped to his underwear. The Accused allegedly poured water over him and told Plaintiff A. that he could wipe out 10 percent of all detainees. He said he had a right to life and death but that the detainees were terrorists and had no rights. Plaintiff A. also described witnessing the torture of fellow detainees. One woman was tortured in front of her husband in the big central room (where all detainees were held) and her husband was beaten outside in the rain. The Accused opened the door, and Plaintiff A. saw that the mustache of the man was shaved off which was a humiliation in Syrian culture. Plaintiff A. highlighted that the Accused used the Shabeh method of torture, whereby detainees were hung hup by their feet with their head down. He saw that an 18-year-old man started to experience involuntary spasms after his torture. Plaintiff A. emphasized that seeing how others were tortured was the point; that this was meant to create fear amongst the other detainees. He was detained for 80 days and spent 22 of those days in a different prison. After a week, the Accused was allegedly imprisoned there as well, and they shared a cell before the Accused was transferred to Damascus. The Judge inquired whether the Accused had been detained alongside Plaintiff A. The Accused denied this.

When speaking about the consequences of his detention, Plaintiff A. had said that he did not have teeth anymore and believed he suffered from memory-related problems because of the torture. He got scabies and lost about 40 kilos. His wife confirmed that her husband was taken on September 19, 2013, as they were together in the house of her sister-in-law. She also recalled that her father had to pay a sum of money for her to see her husband, Plaintiff A. Her father knew the Accused because he had been his teacher. The Judge asked the Accused whether this was the case. The Accused replied that sadly everyone knew who the father-in-law of Plaintiff A. was and that he was known as a “rotten” person. The Judge stopped the Accused and said that she wished to hear no more allegations against others.

When the wife of Plaintiff A. went to see her husband, she saw an interrogation room with Russian guns on the wall, as well as iron chains and a bamboo stick with a cable. She heard cries of torture. She saw the Accused in his uniform and her father addressed him by the name of “[redacted name].” He had thick glasses, a large belly, and curly hair. The Accused interrupted to clarify that he currently does not have curly hair. The Judge acknowledged this and continued. When the wife of Plaintiff A. saw her husband, she said his teeth were broken and that he looked very thin. He told her that he had been beaten but asked her to stay calm. Plaintiff A. told her that he would not be released and asked her not to return. She had never seen him so broken. Following his release, he had lice and weighed 40 kilos. If he had stayed in detention for another two days, he would have died.

The Judge presented the witness statement of the cousin of Plaintiff A., S., who had been detained with him and heard that multiple people beat and kicked him. Additionally, he saw that Plaintiff A. looked bad, that his clothes were torn, and his hair disheveled. The Judge stated that a human rights organization had found the names of A., W2 (the wife of [redacted name], F17) and [redacted name], F18, among those who had been detained in Salamiyah. F18 recognized the Accused as they had gone to the same school. The Accused denied this and said that he only knew [F18] as a waiter at a local restaurant. The Judge asked the Accused why Plaintiff A. would accuse him, and the Accused responded that Plaintiff A. was part of a gang handling munitions. When asked again how he obtained this information, the Accused referred to his statements to the police and expressed disbelief that he had been kept in prison for 28 months only to be asked “how did you know this?”. The Accused said that these were conditions of war, and that if all the facts were considered together, then the truth would emerge. The Accused got increasingly agitated and said that it was highly unlikely that someone would faint five times, and that this should be investigated.

The Judge interrupted him because she saw that he was becoming angry and asked whether the Prosecutors had any additional questions. The Prosecutors pointed out that the Accused referred to Plaintiff A. by two different names. He did not recognize the first name, but the facts of the allegations reminded him of another person, [redacted name], F19. The Accused had testified before the police about the arrest of F19. The Prosecutor asked him if he knew these details because he was there. The Accused did not understand why he was being asked about this, as the statements made to the police were very clear. The Prosecutor agreed that they were so clear that it seemed as if the Accused was present during the arrest. The Accused claimed that the case of F19 was separate from the case of Plaintiff A. and that there was no connection between the two. He claimed no involvement with the arrest of F19. He also stated that F18 and S. were called up to confirm the lies of Plaintiff A. and his wife. He expressed amazement that Plaintiff A., who he referred to as an arms trafficker, had been given asylum in the Netherlands. The Judge understood that it was the view of the Accused that there was a conspiracy against him but reminded him that if he started making accusations against others, he would be interrupted.

The Judge continued with the allegations made by Plaintiff J., who was detained between January 3 and 17, 2014. Plaintiff J. worked in the hospital in Salamiyah and participated in demonstrations. On January 3, 2014, at around 11 PM, the Plaintiff was walking on the street when a car pulled up beside him. Someone put a weapon against his head, and his hands were tied with a scarf. In the car, he was beaten with the butt of a gun, and cigarettes were put out on his skin. There were two people in the car. Plaintiff J. was taken to the headquarters of the NDF. In the interrogation room, Plaintiff J. identified Rafik A. alongside an unknown number of other agents. He was questioned from midnight until 7 AM. He was slapped with the hand and hit with an electric cable. He was tied up until 10 PM and hit with a car tire. He had to put his legs through the tire and fold himself into it. Plaintiff J. described being left like that for four or five hours. The cycle repeated the next day. The Accused humiliated Plaintiff J. and asked another detainee to stand on the neck of Plaintiff J. The other detainee refused and the Accused allegedly stood on the neck of Plaintiff J. Next to the Accused there was another, [redacted name], F20, who was referred to as steyer/zeer. If detainees refused to talk, steyer would carry out acts of torture at the behest of the Accused. Plaintiff J. was blindfolded, and his arms were tied behind his back. He was asked about his political activities. He was hit with a cable, mostly on his left shoulder but also on his legs. There was even a competition to see who could hit him the hardest. Plaintiff J. still has scars. During the second interrogation, [redacted name], F3, gave commands to Rafik A. The tire was used and he had to make himself small to fit in the tire. He could not move and was left in the tire between half an hour and an hour while he was repeatedly hit, and water was poured over him. Cold water was used so he would feel a more intense pain. Plaintiff J. feared for his life. His third interrogation followed the same pattern: ,being hit with a cable, bare hands and doused in water. F3 was the superior and Rafik A. had control over F16 and F20. When he saw Rafik A. in the cell next to him (after Rafik A. was himself detained), he matched his face to the voice he had heard.

The Judge turned to the consequences of the torture Plaintiff J. experienced. The police established that there were scars on his left leg. Plaintiff J. noted that when he walked for too long, his leg started hurting. Moreover, he continues experiencing psychiatric issues and contracted Hepatitis B during his detention. The Accused interrupted, claiming that the first question in the interview with Plaintiff J. was wrong. When asked to state his date of birth, Plaintiff J. had given the Accused’s date of birth. The Judge said that she would look into this and continued with the allegations raised by J. against the Accused. Plaintiff J. had said that every question asked during the interrogation was coupled with a form of abuse. When an answer did not satisfy the chief interrogator, he would be hit. Plaintiff J. thinks it was the Accused who hit him. Plaintiff J. reported hearing the Accused referred to as “[redacted name]” Here, the Judge asked the Accused whether he had ever been referred to as “[redacted name].” The Accused confirmed that he was sometimes referred to as “[redacted name]” on account of his son, [redacted name], F21. However, this was a familial title and not everyone was allowed to address him by this name.

Turning to the supporting witness statements made by W4, the Judge detailed that Plaintiff J. had confided that he had been tortured by Rafik A. Moreover, Plaintiff S. said that he had been taken to the interrogation room with J. by F6 and F20 and witnessed his abuse. The Judge also addressed a suspension decision which confirmed that Plaintiff J. was fired from the hospital following his arrest. Moreover, in January 2014, Zaman Al Wasl published a list of 170 detained individuals in Salamiyah online. Plaintiff J.’s name was listed as number [redacted information] with the date of arrest as January 2, 2014. The Judge asked whether the Accused wanted to respond to this, repeating his reminder to keep his comments related to the conspiracy until the end. The Accused denied allegations Plaintiff J. has made against him but said that Plaintiff J. had done him a good service.

The Presiding Judge addressed the previous comment of the Accused, namely that Plaintiff J. had given the wrong date of birth. He verified that though the wrong date of birth was initially given, this had been corrected in the dossier. The Presiding Judge asked whether the Prosecution had additional questions. The Prosecutor asked what the Accused meant when he said Plaintiff J. had done him a good service. The Accused said that this was in the dossier, and the media would report why Plaintiff J. was arrested. The Prosecutor highlighted that the Accused had previously said that F4 made sure that Plaintiff J. was arrested and asked the Accused what he knew about this. The Accused referred back to his police interview. When the Prosecutor asked how he knew this, and the Accused again referred to his interview, the Prosecutor was adamant, highlighting that this information was not clear from his police interview. The Accused replied that F4 ensured that Plaintiff J. was released and that it was the Plaintiff himself who had testified to that effect. The Prosecutor maintained that this was not a clear answer. The Accused told her that later, when she was a Judge, she might be a different person and that the Prosecution “was always like this.” The Accused did not answer the question. The Judge asked whether anyone had any other questions and moved to the break.

***

[30-minute-break]

***

After the break, the Judge continued with allegations relating to torture and sexual violence as crimes against humanity. Plaintiff S. testified that F10 had been keeping an eye on his brother, [redacted name], F22. During his arrest, Plaintiff S. was beaten and called a pimp and a dog. Plaintiff S. realized that he had been mistaken for his brother and told F10 that he was S., not F22. They did not believe him, and he was brought to the NDF’s headquarters.

According to Plaintiff S., the Accused told him to undress and told his subordinates to make him remember whether he was S. or F22. Plaintiff S. was told to get on his knees and then to stand up again. When he was asked who he was, Plaintiff S. responded: “Rafik, do you not recognize me? I am S.” S. heard Rafik A. commenting that he could see despite his blindfold and was then kicked in his genitals. Plaintiff S. described the pain as “so intense that [he] forgot every other kind of pain.” He was brought to an isolation cell and left in solitary confinement with no food or water for three days. Following this, F2 asked him who he was and Plaintiff S. repeated that he was not F22. He was hit with a diesel container and a diesel stove. They also hit him with a stick and with the butt of a Kalashnikov gun. He could not see anything. This was when his teeth were broken. Plaintiff S. said that he had been hit on his upper body, chest and neck. In another testimony, he recalled that he was hit by the Accused on the day of his arrest as well as during the second day of his interrogation. He was hit on the side of his neck, he was hit with a box, and kicked on his rear end. When asked how he knew Rafik A. had been the one who hit him, Plaintiff S. responded that he could recognize his body odor when he walked towards him. He was also interrogated without a blindfold on the fourth day and matched the Accused's face with the voice of his interrogator. Additionally, he saw the name Rafik A. on the name plaque on the desk of his interrogator. Plaintiff S. also alleged that he saw the Accused in both military and civilian outfits. The day before his release, Plaintiff S. claimed, the Accused slept in the cell next to him.

In another testimony, Plaintiff S. said that he had been interrogated four times, completely naked, and kicked in his genitals once, prior to being put in solitary confinement. Plaintiff S. claimed that the Accused had hit him during the first night. He also testified that he saw how other detainees were tortured, as there was a space between the isolation cell and the cell where the detainees were kept. Plaintiff S. saw six detainees being tortured in the space between the cells, as the doors were opened so other detainees could see the torture. Plaintiff S. said that he saw the Accused hit the detainees with his hand and with an iron chain. Plaintiff J. confirmed that he saw Plaintiff S. in the other cell (the isolation cell) and did not know how long he had been detained there. The Accused asked who J. was, and the Judge referred to the list of names of the Plaintiffs which was in front of the Accused.

The Judge continued with supporting evidence and referred to the list of 170 detainees in Salamiyah as the name and date of arrest of Plaintiff S. was noted at number [redacted information]. The Accused commented that now the public can easily find out who Plaintiff S. was. The Judge referred to a news alert issued on January 11, 2014 in which the arrest of S. was mentioned. Moreover, there was a Facebook post which confirmed that Plaintiff S. and his father were arrested by the People’s Committee.

The Presiding Judge noticed that the Accused wanted to comment. The Accused expressed surprise that the Court was sharing false information during a public trial. He went on to point out that the Facebook post was from February 5, and yet Plaintiff S. claimed to have been released on February 12. The Accused said that this was evidence that Plaintiff S. was not being honest. Further, he said that it was the Court’s duty to give him correct information and questioned whether the police had even checked the reliability of the website. When asked by the Judge if he was referring to the list, the Accused said that he was referring to everything, not just the list. The Accused held up a plan of the NDF headquarters and angrily questioned why the Court did not take at least five minutes to compare the plan with the testimonies presented by the Plaintiffs. The Judge summarized that the Accused disagreed with the date of the Facebook post and brought a floor plan/map. She asked the Accused whether she understood correctly that, according to this floor plan, the Accused believed the description of the buildings was inaccurate. Suddenly, the Accused stood up and said that he had to stand “otherwise [his] heart [would] explode.” He was agitated and asked several questions, such as: “Where were they? In which room? Where were the women? Where were the men? One accuses me of standing on his neck, the other says I hung him, where is the cell?” The Judge told the Accused to sit down and attempted to continue, but the Accused continued speaking, saying: “Salaam S., Salaam S.”. The Judge said that she did not like being talked over and asked the Accused to stop.

The Defense Counsel then stressed that his client saw contradictions in the dossier and should be given the chance to address these. The Presiding Judge asked whether the Defense Counsel had spoken with his client about the floor plan, as the Accused had also held this up on the first day of the trial. The floor plan was not a part of the dossier. The Defense Counsel replied that, due to logistical challenges in the Hague, it had not been possible to discuss this with his client. The Accused stated that he was “a son of Syria,” and that there were no drugs in Syria. The Accused reiterated that there was a lot of injustice towards him and that he should be given the opportunity to defend himself. When he was arrested and told about F2, he knew he was a target. The Accused maintained that he was not a normal detainee but rather a prisoner of war in the Netherlands. He claimed that Europe was full of terrorists and he was a public servant of the court (in Salamiyah).

The Judge asked whether the Prosecution wished to add anything. The Prosecutor referred to documents Plaintiff A. had handed over to the police. These documents were from the archives in Salamiyah, handed to Plaintiff A.’s lawyer by a commission of the current Syrian Government. One of the documents was from January 4, 2014, by the lead commander of security forces to the central head of the NDF, containing the status of detainees including the reason for their arrest. The brother of Plaintiff A. was mentioned in this list with the explanation that he dealt with ammunition. Another letter, dated January 13, 2014, between the lead commander of the security forces and the head of the information department of the NDF, contained the names of detainees in the center of Salamiyah. This letter mentioned the names of Plaintiff J. and Plaintiff A. The Accused asked the Prosecution to clarify why this was important. The Prosecutor responded that it was important to publicly address aspects of the dossier, in the same way as the Judge also addressed these. The Accused complained that he had been in detention for 28 months and that the Prosecutor wanted to adjust the charges at 5 PM on the day before the start of the trial. The Accused argued that the trial would have stopped in Syria until these matters were investigated. The Prosecutor responded that the documents she was currently addressing had been in the dossier for a year. The Accused stressed that he was talking about the Court proceedings and asked why he had been arrested.

The Presiding Judge asked the Prosecutor to clarify whether the documents were added to the police interview with Plaintiff A. The Prosecutor confirmed that the documents were translated from Arabic and handed over during the police interview. The Presiding Judge said that he could only find a drawing attached and not the other documents. The Prosecution had assumed that the investigative judge would have added them to the dossier as the translation was sent by email on May 8, 2025 and the Defense had access to these documents. The Presiding Judge said that he would look into this matter.

When asked about an ambush that Plaintiff S. had allegedly orchestrated, the Accused said that this was a security matter and that many were killed. The Accused was reading from a piece of paper, and the Prosecutor asked him what he was reading. The Accused responded that he was reading from his notes and wanted to list all the crimes that had occurred, as a result of the ambush. The Prosecutor asked the Accused how he learned about this information, and the Accused reiterated that he was the one who examined the bodies. He started talking about two soldiers from Salamiyah who had been killed on the road to Salamiyah when the Presiding Judge interrupted him. The Judge to the right of the Presiding Judge asked the Prosecutor to focus more closely on the allegations against the Accused. The Prosecutor stressed that if the Accused gave an alternative version of events, it was important to ask him questions about this. The Accused continued talking over the Judge and the Prosecutor until the Presiding Judge raised his voice and asked him to stop talking. The Prosecutor continued to ask the Accused whether, upon investigating the ambush, he had seen Plaintiff S. The Accused responded that if he had seen Plaintiff S., Plaintiff S. would have killed him. The Accused claimed that killing someone meant nothing to Plaintiff S. and that he had documented 16 cases of people killed by Plaintiff S. in the city of Salamiyah alone.

The Judge gave the Accused the opportunity to discuss issues he had brought up during the day, such as the work of the police. The Accused started by saying that there was a truth that the Court was not aware of. The NDF was not about investigations but rather gathering information. Its headquarters were located next to the Talkhid/Tariq mosque. Plaintiff H. had initially said that they were taken there, but later changed their statement. The Accused questioned whether there was anyone in Salamiyah who could have been so gruesome to commit the alleged acts. He wondered why all the information was biased against him and expressed that there was much he wanted to say but could not publicly address. He delved into Syrian politics and told the Court to consider the CV of the current Syrian President, Mohammad al-Jolani [Ahmed al-Sharaa]. He claimed that it would have been impossible to overthrow the Assad regime “if no weapon had been unjustified” [meaning unclear]. He named the “martyrs” Colonel [redacted name], F23, and [redacted name], F24, who had been killed prior to Assad’s departure. Further, he decried the level of deception of the dossier. He wanted to tell Plaintiff O. that she was like a sister to him but that he could no longer say this to Plaintiffs R. and O. The Accused wondered whether the Court even read the dossier and complained that he had been sent to the “madhouse” (the Pieter Baan Centre) for six weeks [note: a forensic psychiatric observation clinic in Almere, Netherlands]. He was woken up at 5 AM to arrive in Court and came home at 8 PM, and this was not good for his health.

Following this, the Presiding Judge briefly discussed the documents mentioned by the Prosecution earlier. The Defense also confirmed that they had possession of these documents. The Presiding Judge outlined the remaining personal circumstances of the Accused which would be discussed on Monday, the 13th.

The proceedings were adjourned at 4:45 PM

The next trial day would be on April 13, 2026, at 9:00 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