Inside the Rafik A. Trial #3: The Prosecutor’s and the Defense’s Pleadings

TRIAL OF RAFIK A.

District Court the Hague - The Hague, The Netherlands

Trial Monitoring Summary #3

Hearing Dates: April 21, 22 & 23, 2026    

CAUTION: Some testimony may include graphic descriptions of torture, rape or other violent acts.  

Note that this summary is not a verbatim transcript of the trial; it is merely an unofficial summary of the proceedings.  

Throughout this summary, [information located in brackets are notes from our trial monitor] and “information placed in quotes are statements made by the witness, judges or counsel.” The names and identifying information of witnesses have been redacted. 

[Note: SJAC provides a summary of the proceedings while redacting certain details to protect witness privacy and to preserve the integrity of the trial.]

Trial Monitoring reports of the 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 3^rd trial monitoring report details days 5, 6, and 7 of the trial of Rafik A. in the Hague, the Netherlands. On the first day of this week, the hearing was interrupted because the livestream was not working and the Prosecutor's submissions were postponed to the following day.

On the second day of this trial week, the Prosecution delivered its pleadings. It argued that there was a long line of jurisprudence about sexual violence which emphasized the intent of the perpetrator to humiliate the victim. The Prosecution also presented documents linking the Accused to the NDF, such as letters and signed statements. It then recounted the statements made by the Plaintiffs and witnesses and claimed that these corroborated each other on key points. Finally, the Prosecution argued that based on the severity of the acts as well as the ongoing threat posed by the Accused, the Plaintiffs’ requests for damages should be admitted and the Accused should be sentenced with the maximum of 30 years imprisonment. The Prosecution found no mitigating circumstances on the part of the Accused.

On the third day, the Defense delivered its pleadings, seeking full acquittal on all charges. It challenged the reliability of several Plaintiffs and witnesses and argued that the alleged acts of sexual violence could not be classified as international crimes. The Defense also emphasized key points raised by the Accused. Additionally, it contended that the Plaintiffs’ request for damages should be deemed inadmissible or alternatively reduced based on the severity of the acts attributed to each Plaintiff. Finally, the Defense argued that the sentence sought by the Prosecution was excessive and should be reconsidered considering the Accused’s circumstances.

Day 5 – April 21, 2026

On this trial day, the proceedings started at 9:10 AM before the Meervoudige Kamer of the District Court in The Hague. The Presiding Judge welcomed those present in the courtroom and online and indicated that the Prosecution would present their pleadings today. 

The Accused was given the opportunity to respond to the victims’ statements. In addition, the Accused requested extra time to raise several further points. The Court granted him twenty minutes to respond to the victims’ statements. In doing so, the Court also warned him, as he had made insulting remarks about the Plaintiffs over the past few days. The Accused stated that what had happened to the Plaintiffs was regrettable but maintained that he had nothing to do with it.

The submissions of the Prosecution were also scheduled for that day. The Accused indicated that he did not wish to listen to the Prosecution’s submissions. However, the Court required him to be present and to actively listen. The Court has the authority to do so, unless there are compelling interests on the part of the Accused. According to the Court, no such interests existed.

Shortly before the Prosecution’s submissions statement was due to begin, the hearing was interrupted because the livestream was not working. For that reason, the Court adjourned the proceedings until the following day.

The proceedings were adjourned at 10:30 AM.

The next trial day would be on April 22, 2026, at 9:00 AM.

Day 6 – April 22, 2026

At 9:09 AM the proceedings continued. Initially, the Accused indicated that he did not want to put on his headphones. The Court required him to do so, because the obligation to be present also means that he must be able to hear what is said during the hearing. The Accused noted that the Prosecution could not be trusted, but the Presiding Judge did not allow him to elaborate on that point and ordered him to put on his headphones.

The Prosecutor began by naming the Plaintiffs and referring to the long period they had had to wait for this hearing. The Prosecutor also emphasized the exceptional nature of the case, as this was the first time that sexual violence as a Crime Against Humanity has been brought before a Dutch court. The Prosecution used visual materials in support of its submissions.

The Prosecutor also addressed the statement made by the Plaintiffs’ Counsel the previous day. In that statement, it had been explained that the victims prefer the term “survivor.” The Prosecution indicated that it understood this preference, but that it would nevertheless use the term “victim” in its submissions, because this is a recognized term within Dutch criminal law.

The indictment included torture as a Crime Against Humanity, sexual violence as a Crime Against Humanity, and rape as a Crime Against Humanity. For conduct to qualify as a Crime Against Humanity, it must form part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. It is also required that the perpetrator had knowledge of that attack and that the conduct was connected to it. The perpetrator’s personal motive is not decisive in that regard.

The Prosecution addressed the situation in Syria during the 2012–2013 period and highlighted that the Assad regime’s policy during that time was generally known. With respect to torture, the Prosecution emphasized that it concerns the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental. Under detention circumstances, even a slap may qualify as torture, particularly considering the young age of the victim. In addition, previous cases have established that mental suffering may also fall within the scope of torture, for example when victims witness the torture of others. The removal of victims to be tortured, as well as observing their injuries upon their return, may also contribute to the finding of such mental suffering.

Regarding rape as a Crime Against Humanity, the relevant conduct concerns the penetration of the body under coercive circumstances or by means of force. The definition of the offense is formulated in gender-neutral terms. The Prosecution also discussed various judgments of international tribunals concerning rape and sexual violence. The Prosecutor took the position that, when assessing whether sexual violence occurred, the focus should not be on the perpetrator’s motive of sexual gratification, but on the consequences for the victim, namely their humiliation. When a body part that is generally associated with sexuality is touched or exposed, this may be a relevant factor in determining whether sexual violence occurred. In that context, the Prosecutor noted that the Rwanda Tribunal held that forced public nudity can amount to sexual violence.

The Prosecution held that grabbing a clothed breast under detention circumstances, as well as pressing a victim’s head into a guard’s lap, must be regarded as sexual violence. The Prosecution also submitted that kicking victims in the genitals must be qualified as sexual violence.

***

[25-minute-break]

***

A video was shown explaining the situation in Syria during and after the Arab Spring. The video addressed, among other things, the establishment of the NDF and the presence of various ethnic and religious groups in Salamiyah.

The Prosecution argued that sexual violence was used from the beginning of the conflict as a means of extracting confessions. The Prosecution also submitted that violence, including torture, sexual violence, and the rape of detainees, formed part of the Syrian attack against the civilian population. According to the Prosecution, there was a systematic attack against the civilian population. The Prosecution based this position on the assertion that it was government policy to torture detainees, subject them to sexual violence, and rape them.

After establishing the presence of a widespread and systematic attack on the civilian population, which are crucial elements of establishing a Crime Against Humanity, the Prosecution turned to the role of the Accused within the NDF. Besides the various witness statements which link the Accused to the NDF, the Prosecution pointed to three official documents which also named the Accused as an interrogator for the NDF. These documents were internal NDF memos which stated that the Accused had been detained from February 12 to June 4, 2014, for sexual harassment and attempted sexual assault. One of the documents was a signed letter from the Accused to the NDF department in central Hama in which he claimed to be the target of a conspiracy. An investigation by SJAC confirmed the authenticity of these documents.

Witness D. had obtained a USB stick on which [redacted name], F3, [the brother of F13, [redacted name]] had recorded a list of deeds of NDF personnel as potential leverage against them. Witness D. also delivered documents which confirmed that the Accused had been detained for 6 months by the NDF for the sexual abuse of women. Moreover, he delivered a document with a list of weapons distributed to NDF personnel, and the Accused was mentioned as an interrogator. The Prosecutor also emphasized photos of the Accused in military outfit with a “saharov” gun (the same gun next to his name in the distribution list).

As for the evaluation of the witness statements, the Prosecution recounted that many witnesses stated that whilst [redacted name], F4, and F13 were technically his superiors, the Accused had the final say in the interrogations. Witnesses say the Accused was referred to as Saidi, Almuami/mualem and astaz by both detainees and fellow NDF personnel. These titles signify a position of authority. The Prosecution briefly recounted seven witness statements which confirmed the position of the Accused as a powerful figure within the NDF interrogations, with the power to determine whether someone would be held indefinitely or let go.

The Prosecution addressed the claims by the Accused that he was the victim of an orchestrated conspiracy by the human rights lawyer [redacted name], F9. They asserted that most Plaintiffs and witnesses had never been contacted by F9 and referred to the supporting documents which existed independently of F9. The Prosecution referred to previous judgements in which the Court held that a traumatized victim was not necessarily less reliable, as a traumatic experience could have a “weapon focus effect” in which a victim becomes hyper fixated on details at the periphery of an attack, such as the clothes of the perpetrator. The most important thing when assessing witness statements was that the main elements of the statements remain consistent. The Accused interjected at this point and said the screen and headphones were not working. He also stated that if God was with him, no one would be against him.

***

[30-minute-break]

***

After the break, the Prosecution continued with their pleadings. They presented a video about the explosion at the carpet factory on January 21, 2013. Shortly before this explosion, witness M. was detained by the NDF and held at this location. He was held for four days and heavily beaten by his interrogators. Being blindfolded made him rely on his other senses. The third interrogation was more violent, causing his blindfold to slip. M. briefly saw his interrogators and described them in a detailed and precise way. The Prosecutor described the methods of torture used on M. [for the details of this testimony, please see Trial Report #1] and emphasized that the requirements of sufficient support for the witness statements made by M. were met. Besides his mother, who testified that M. returned from detention in bad shape, a psychologist diagnosed M. with a depressive disorder in 2023. The Dutch legal system recognizes “foltering” as torture with a specific purpose. The Prosecution alleged that the Accused tortured M. on behalf of the Syrian Government with the specific purpose of obtaining a confession. M. was accused of helping the opposition, and this was the main reason for his detention and torture.his detention and torture.

Additionally, the Prosecution claimed that elements of the crime of sexual violence had also been satisfied. When considering this crime, a crucial question is whether there were “acts of a sexual nature.” Such acts can be established where body parts normally associated with sexuality are affected. The emphasis is on the sexual humiliation of the victim by the perpetrator. On this point, the Prosecutor asserted that the Accused told M. that he had to “man up” when he started crying because the butt of a gun had been pressed into his anus. Further, they argued that these actions could be seen as “any other form of sexual violence of comparable severity” and thus within the scope of article 4(1)(g) of the WIM (Wet Internationale Misdrijven, Law on International Crimes). Especially considering the nature, consequences, and context of the torture, the Prosecution argued that beliefs about masculinity impacted how male victims spoke about their experiences of sexual trauma in detention.

The Prosecution presented their view on the reliability of the statements made by Plaintiffs F., D. and H. about their detention in the villa of the Kuwaiti man. The Prosecution claimed that their testimonies were detailed and consistent. All Plaintiffs were able to explain how they obtained certain information. Plaintiff F. had seen the Accused once a week in the shop of his parents and could identify him because his blindfold slipped during his interrogation. The Accused had allegedly told him that “[his] face would be the last face that [F.] would see in Salamiyah.” Plaintiff D. said that he recognized the voice of the Accused, as the Accused’s sister was married to D.’s cousin. The Accused allegedly referred to D. as “nephew.” Plaintiff H. did not know the Accused prior to his detention, but he had seen a photo of the Accused which was distributed to warn protesters. One of his cellmates in Damascus had identified the Accused, and after hearing the story of his cousin, he was “100% sure” that the Accused had been his interrogator. The Prosecution argued that as these Plaintiffs had been detained together, they saw each other’s injuries. For instance, Plaintiff D. declared that he could barely recognize Plaintiff F. following his torture, as his face and hands were swollen, and his hair was covered in dried blood.

The Accused himself had previously called the Plaintiffs criminals who were members of the organization [redacted information]. The Prosecution argued that these claims were baseless and that the attacks on the Plaintiffs fit seamlessly into an established pattern of state violence.

As for the acts of sexual violence against F. and D., the Prosecution held that these were closely connected with their torture and that the goal of the Accused was the humiliation of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs described the boots and sports shoes worn by their interrogator, and these shoes were also worn by the Accused in photos. On essential points, the Prosecution argued that the testimonies of F. and D. corroborated each other.

The Prosecution recounted the details of torture against Plaintiff R. [for the details of this testimony, please see Trial Report #1]. The Prosecution argued that Plaintiff R. testified in a consistent and detailed manner. Her statements about the alleged appearance of the genitalia of the Accused were corroborated by forensic investigators. Moreover, she had mentioned details of her torture during her immigration interview [in [redacted location]] on February 27, 2015. She had named the Accused to her friend [redacted name] S. The Accused interrupted and said that the translation was wrong and misgendered [redacted name] S. It was objectively established that Plaintiff R. experienced gynecological problems and PTSD. The Prosecution argued that her torture could be qualified as a Crime Against Humanity and that her allegations of rape were corroborated. experienced gynecological problems and PTSD. The Prosecution argued that her torture could be qualified as a Crime Against Humanity and that her allegations of rape were corroborated.

***

[80-minute-break]

***

[Note: During this break, a man who had been sitting in the Public Gallery approached the Accused and said something to him. The Presiding Judge and other members of the Court had left the room.]

Following the break, the Accused said the man had threatened to kill him and his family. The man had left the room. The Defense Counsel requested that no one approach his client. The Presiding Judge reiterated that he did not want anyone to approach the Accused and that, should he see this behavior, he would intervene. The Accused was not satisfied with this answer and worried that the man would kill his family. The Presiding Judge told him there was no reason to assume this and asked him to put his headphones back on.

The Prosecution recounted the allegations made by Plaintiff O. [for the details of this testimony, please see Trial Report #1]. The statements were supported by her sister, who claimed that when she returned from detention, she was thin and had scabies and her voice had changed. Plaintiff O. was careful in her identification of the Accused, relying on how she felt when she heard his voice. The Accused had taken off his headphones and was not listening to the Prosecution. Plaintiff O.’s physical description of her interrogator was a short man with a big stomach and a wide body. During her torture, he had been close enough to her that she could feel the dimensions of his body. Document 255, which establishes that the Accused was arrested at the beginning of 2014, fit the timeline of Plaintiff O.’s statements. According to the Prosecution, this underlined the accuracy of her statements. ’s statements. According to the Prosecution, this underlined the accuracy of her statements.

In contrast to the statements made by Plaintiff O., the Prosecution said that the arguments made by the Accused were unconvincing. The Prosecution argued that the Accused had instead been “victim blaming” the Plaintiffs. The Accused interrupted and pleaded with the Court because he did not want to listen to the Prosecution. The Presiding Judge told him that his right to speak was over, and he had to stop. The Accused continued until the Presiding Judge said that it was all right if he did not listen to this part of the Prosecution’s pleadings. The Prosecution concluded that Plaintiff O. and her fellow detainees had been called the “whores of terrorists” and subjected to acts of a sexual nature which fell within the scope of the crime of sexual violence. The Prosecutor requested that the Accused put his headphones back on, as this part of the pleadings was over. The Accused did not want to do so and responded that the hearing was “torture” for him.

Turning to the statements made by Plaintiff A., the Prosecution again argued that A. was able to recount in detail what had been done to him and that his statements were supported by his fellow detainees [redacted name], W2, and [redacted name], W3. Moreover, Plaintiff A. could substantiate where he had gotten his information from. The Prosecution argued that the facts of the torture of A. [for the details of this testimony, please see Trial Report #1] should be viewed in connection with the statements made by Plaintiffs J. and S. All three Plaintiffs mention a young man, [redacted name], F25, who was detained at the same time as they were and tortured to the point of insanity. They also all mention their transfer from the detention location [redacted location] to another detention center, the technical service close to the [redacted location]. Plaintiff S. had been able to recognize the Accused as his interrogator because of his “body odor.”  

Concluding their pleadings, the Prosecution said they have discussed the contextual elements, the evidence and legal classification of the facts. The Accused then interrupted, and the Presiding Judge told him that he had to be quiet. When the Accused continued speaking, the Presiding Judge told him he did not wish to be interrupted again. The Prosecution said that for cases such as these, superlatives like “unimaginable suffering” were often used. They highlighted that far from being in the past, this suffering is felt by victims like it happened yesterday. Their experiences of torture have caused them to lose trust in people and experience depression. Yet every day, the victims tell themselves, “I am stronger than what happened to me.” This resilience and the refusal to let what was done to them determine the rest of their lives takes a tremendous amount of strength. The Accused became very angry and started shouting. The Presiding Judge "shushed" him, and the Prosecutor continued speaking over him. The Prosecution then claimed that the Accused had contributed greatly to the repressive tactics used by the Syrian Government. Moreover, the Prosecution believed that there was a risk of recidivism, as there were crucial indicators that the Accused was still a danger to society. He had been arrested in the Netherlands for the assault of a woman with whom he had a Marktplaats appointment [the circumstances and allegation of this case are unclear]. The Accused started shouting again and the Presiding Judge raised his voice and told him to be silent; the Court would not hear him now. The Prosecution continued that whilst the victims had escaped death, they had been irreversibly marked by their experiences. The Prosecution argued that there has rarely been such a case before Dutch courts. Given the conduct of the Accused during the hearing and the danger he still arguably poses for society, the Prosecution asked the Court to find all the facts sufficiently proven and impose the maximum available prison sentence of 30 years.

The proceedings were adjourned at 5:28 PM

The next trial day would be on April 23, 2026, at 9:00 AM. 

Day 7 – April 23, 2026

On this trial day, the proceedings started at 9:17 AM before the Meervoudige Kamer of the District Court in The Hague. The Presiding Judge welcomed those present in the courtroom and online and indicated that the Defense would present their pleadings today. The Accused was provided with headphones to follow the proceedings.

The Defense sought acquittal on all charges. The Defense Counsel began by arguing that the charges of sexual violence relating to R. and O. should be declared inadmissible. In support of this position, the Defense invoked Article 359a of the Dutch Criminal Code, which addresses irreparable procedural violations in preparatory investigation and allows, in exceptional circumstances, for a declaration of inadmissibility. The Defense submitted that the Accused had previously been detained by the NDF due to alleged sexual abuse of women. This detention occurred after the alleged acts concerning R. and O. During this detention, the Accused was subjected to torture. The Defense argued that such a violation is irreparable in nature and thus constitutes an extraordinary circumstance.

Furthermore, The Defense reiterated that the Accused denies all allegations against him. The Counsel argued that even if the Court were to find that the Accused was a member of the NDF, or that he was untruthful in denying such membership, this would not in itself establish his guilt in respect of the charges brought against him. Moving on, the Defense submitted that multiple interrogators were operating within the NDF, as is confirmed by the testimony of several witnesses and Plaintiffs. Reference was made to the statement of F., who indicated that the Accused was “one of thousands.” The Defense also referred to the testimony of [redacted name], who recalled that interrogators did not work continuously but operated in shifts, making it impossible for any single individual to have been always present. The Defense contended that it was unknown how many of these interrogators wore glasses and that this could not serve as a unique identifying feature.

The Defense proceeded to argue that the reliability of witness testimony is compromised due to contact between witnesses, both in person and online. The Defense further claimed that several witnesses and Plaintiffs identified the Accused only after speaking with third parties. In addition, some witnesses were unable to identify the sources of their information, instead stating that certain things were “generally known” in Salamiyah. The Defense therefore submitted that mutual influence, particularly given the passage of time, cannot be excluded.

Following this, the Defense addressed the charges in relation to M. It was argued that there is insufficient evidence to establish that a barrel was inserted between M.’s buttocks, as this allegation rests solely on M.’s own testimony. In any event, the Defense submitted that there is no evidence of intent or knowledge on the part of the Accused. M testified that [redacted name], F10, carried out the act and that he did not hear the Accused give any instruction to F10. The Defense also challenged M.’s identification of the Accused. It was submitted that M. did not know the Accused and saw the interrogator for only two seconds. M. then later described this individual to a cellmate, who suggested it was the Accused. M. was unable to recall how he described the interrogator. The Defense further noted that M. only recognized the Accused seven years later, after seeing a photo of him together with his name. It was argued that this raises doubts as to whether the recognition was based on M.’s observation or influenced by the name accompanying the photo. Lastly, the Defense argued that, even if the alleged acts were proven, they do not meet the gravity threshold of an international crime and referred to the Limaj case (before the ICTY) where similar conduct was found to be of insufficient gravity.

The Defense then addressed the charges in relation to A., arguing that his testimony is unreliable due to significant inconsistencies. It was submitted that these inconsistencies raise concerns about A.’s credibility and his willingness to make incriminating statements against the Accused, thereby affecting the evidentiary value of his testimony. In this regard, the Defense referred to the testimony of [redacted name], W3, who stated that he and [redacted name], W2, were present when A. was tortured during an interrogation. However, A. had previously told the French police that he was not tortured during interrogations. A later stated that W3 and W2 were not present but may have heard the alleged torture. The Defense argued that merely hearing that A. was being tortured does not establish that the Accused was responsible, or even present.

The Defense further highlighted inconsistencies in the statements of A. and J. regarding the alleged rape of a woman from [redacted location]. According to A., a fellow detainee attempted to hang himself, prompting the other detainees to bang on the door, after which the Accused approached while pulling up his pants. A. also testified that he passed by a half-undressed woman. In contrast, J. made no mention of a detainee attempting to hang himself, the banging on the door, or the Accused adjusting his clothing. Instead, J. stated that he observed events through a slit in the door, saw a woman being taken to a room by the Accused, heard her scream, and saw her being returned afterward. The Defense argued that these inconsistencies undermine the reliability of their testimonies. Considering this, the Defense submitted that the alleged torture of J. is evidenced solely on J.’s own testimony, and that this testimony could not be deemed reliable.

The Defense then addressed the charges of sexual violence relating to R. and O., arguing that the alleged acts were not committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack and therefore do not qualify as Crimes Against Humanity. According to the Defense, violence against women was disapproved of by the NDF in Salamiyah. This is evidenced by the Accused’s arrest by the NDF in relation to the sexual abuse of women. The Defense further argued that the alleged acts cannot be qualified as torture, as there is no evidence of the required specific purpose, such as obtaining information or a confession. Instead, it was submitted that, if proven, the acts were committed solely for personal sexual gratification.

The Defense further submitted that, even if the Court were to find that the alleged acts could qualify as Crimes Against Humanity, the evidence in relation to R. is limited. It was argued that the evidence solely consists of R.’s own statements. The testimonies of [redacted name] K. and [redacted name] S. are based on what R. told them or their interpretation of her account. The Defense also questioned the evidentiary value of observations made by W6 and [redacted name] S. regarding R.’s emotional state, submitting that such emotions could be attributable to other causes unrelated to the acts alleged against the Accused. The Defense held that, following her first arrest, R. was in a vulnerable state and was taking medication. The Defense Counsel further pointed to inconsistencies in R.’s statements concerning her use of medication.  Lastly, the Defense addressed medical evidence. It was argued that the medical issues could have been caused by factors other than chlorine, particularly given the lack of clarity as to when the treatment took place and whether other intervening events may have occurred in the meantime.

   ***  

   [20-minutes-break]  

***

The Defense proceeded to address the charges relating to O. O. had testified that she had been blindfolded throughout her detention, yet later identified the Accused in a restaurant. The Defense argued that the manner in which this identification came about renders it unreliable, noting that O. may have been influenced by others, including a group of women and her brother. The Defense also pointed to the fact that the Accused does not match O.’s description of the interrogator. In addition, the Defense highlighted inconsistencies in O.’s testimony regarding voice recognition. It was noted that, in her police statement, O. indicated that she could not say with certainty whether the voice of the Accused matched that of the interrogator. However, she later testified that it was the voice that led to her recognition of the Accused as the interrogator. Lastly, the Defense rejected any reliance on linkage evidence with R., arguing that the alleged acts are too dissimilar to establish a modus operandi.

With regard to S., the Defense submitted that his testimony should be excluded. It was argued that the Defense was not afforded the opportunity to examine S., and that the submission of written questions was insufficient in this respect. According to the Defense, this is incompatible with the right to a fair trial. In the alternative, the Defense argued that S.’s testimony should be considered unreliable. The mere presence of the Accused and S. at the same location was inadequate as supporting evidence for S.’s claim that the Accused exercised violence against him, particularly given that multiple interrogators were active at the time, according to the Defense. The Defense further pointed out that other witnesses have stated that they were interrogated without being subjected to violence. It was therefore argued that there is no modus operandi to support S.’s allegations.

Regarding F., D., and H., the Defense submitted that, although they were allegedly detained simultaneously at the NDF, their statements are inconsistent on key points. In particular, H. did not report electrocution, violence to intimate parts, forced nudity, or the use of electrical cables, whereas F. did. The Defense further contended that F.’s statements evolved over time and are therefore unreliable, noting that certain allegations were only introduced after police questioning. It was also argued that similar acts described by F. may have occurred during his detention by Air Force Intelligence rather than by the NDF. In addition, the medical report concerning F. had limited evidentiary value, as it was issued 13 years after the alleged events. Regarding D. and H., the Defense highlighted further inconsistencies in their statements, particularly concerning voice recognition and the identification of the Accused. D. gave conflicting accounts as to whether he recognized the Accused’s voice. The Defense argued that it is more plausible that D., like H., identified the Accused based on information from fellow detainees rather than personal observation. H. similarly made inconsistent statements. Given that H. was blindfolded and only briefly saw the interrogator, the Defense argued that reliable identification was unlikely. The Defense further submitted that the available supporting evidence is insufficient. D. did not witness the alleged torture of F., H.’s account is general in nature, and F.’s testimony has already been challenged as unreliable.

Regarding the allegations of sexual violence concerning F.., D, and S., the Defense argued that the alleged conduct cannot be qualified as an international crime. It was submitted that the acts were neither inherently sexual in nature nor of comparable gravity to the conduct required to constitute sexual violence as a Crime Against Humanity.

The Defense further conveyed several points that the Accused wished to emphasize. It was submitted that the letter written by the Accused should be understood as expressing his refusal to work for the NDF in the capacity of a court clerk, not as an interrogator. Referring to the letter dated September 15, 2013, the Defense argued that it demonstrates an existing conflict with the NDF from that date onward, such that the Accused could not have committed certain alleged acts thereafter. The Defense also questioned the authenticity of another document dated January 13, 2013, noting that it refers to events occurring after that date, which, in its view, indicates that the document is false. In addition, the Defense pointed to a list of mobile numbers associated with individuals within the NDF, on which the Accused’s name does not appear, and argued that the absence of any reference to an interrogation department suggests that no such department existed.

***  [30-minutes-break]  

***

The Defense then turned to address the Plaintiffs’ claims for damages. It challenged the findings of the appointed expert, arguing that the report lacked clarity, relied on outdated jurisprudence, and did not reflect current Syrian legal practice. The Defense also raised concerns about the expert’s independence, noting his assertion that invoking immunity suggests guilt of the perpetrator. According to the Defense, Syrian law confirms the existence of immunity for civil servants at the relevant time, and the Court should not be required to rule on complex issues of Syrian law. It was further argued that the claims are time-barred under a 10-year limitation period, and that any interruption of this period has not been sufficiently substantiated. In the alternative, the Defense requested a reduction of damages, considering the nature and severity of the alleged acts for each Plaintiff, as well as the Accused’s financial situation.

With regard to sentencing, the Defense argued that the 30-year penalty sought by the Prosecution is disproportionate compared to sentences imposed by international tribunals for more serious offenses. It was further submitted that the alleged acts date back 12 to 13 years. The Defense also emphasized the particularly difficult conditions of the Accused’s detention as he did not speak Dutch or English. Finally, the Defense held that the Accused’s torture by the NDF should be given significant weight in determining the sentence.

The proceedings were adjourned at 2:01 PM.

The next trial day will be on May 12, 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