Inside the Rafik A. Trial #4: The Prosecution's Rebuttal, the Defense's Rejoinder, and the Accused’s Final Statement
TRIAL OF RAFIK A.
District Court the Hague - The Hague, The Netherlands
Trial Monitoring Summary #4
Hearing Dates: May 12, 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 4th trial monitoring report details day 8 of the trial of Rafik A. in the Hague, the Netherlands. On this trial day, the hearing focused on responses to the Defense’s objections concerning the civil claims, the admissibility of certain charges, the qualification of the alleged acts as crimes against humanity and torture, and the overall assessment of the evidence. The Plaintiffs and the Prosecution maintained that the evidentiary record should be considered as a whole, that the civil claims remained justified, and the alleged acts formed part of a broader attack against the civilian population, while the Defense continued to challenge witness reliability, limitation issues, and the legal characterization of the conduct.
A key procedural development occurred when the Court ruled that materials recently disclosed by the Prosecution would not be admitted, considering the disclosure untimely and likely to cause further procedural complications at the final substantive stage of the proceedings. The day concluded with a final statement from the Accused, who denied the allegations, disputed parts of the case file and witness descriptions, and asked the Court to deliver a just and fair judgment.
Day 8 – May 12, 2026
The hearing commenced at 9:19 AM. The Presiding Judge opened the proceedings by noting that the Accused continued to deny all allegations against him. The Court then indicated that the Plaintiffs’ Counsel would first respond to the Defense’s submissions regarding the civil claims, followed by the Prosecution’s rebuttal and the Defense Counsel’s rejoinder.
Before the proceedings continued, the Defense Counsel raised a procedural matter. The Defense Counsel stated that on April 24, a photograph of the Accused taken inside the courtroom had been published online, despite repeated instructions from the Court that photographs of the Accused were not permitted. The Defense Counsel requested that the Court once again emphasize that photographs of the Accused must not be taken or published, citing concerns relating to the privacy and safety of the Accused and his family. The Presiding Judge agreed and reiterated that photographs of the Accused may neither be taken nor published.
The Plaintiffs’ Counsel responded to the objections raised by the Defense regarding the civil claims of the victims. The Plaintiffs’ Counsel argued that the Defense had been provided with sufficient access to the relevant Syrian legal sources upon which the claims were based. According to the Plaintiffs’ Counsel, multiple expert reports relied on the same legal sources, and the Defense had been given ample opportunity, both in writing and during previous hearings, to question those sources and the experts who relied upon them. The Plaintiffs’ Counsel further submitted that the civil claims represented the only realistic option through which the Plaintiffs could obtain compensation. Reference was made to several expert reports that had also been relied upon in other proceedings.
Addressing the issue of immunity, the Plaintiffs’ Counsel argued that immunity does not automatically shield an individual from liability for acts of torture. According to the Plaintiffs’ Counsel, international law does not permit proven acts of torture committed in an official capacity to remain free from legal consequences. The Plaintiffs’ Counsel also responded to the Defense’s statute of limitations argument.
He maintained that victims were effectively unable to pursue legal action against Syrian authorities or affiliated organizations during the Assad regime. Consequently, the limitation period should be considered suspended or interrupted. Furthermore, he argued that the amounts claimed were substantially lower than the actual damage suffered by the victims.
In response to a question from the Presiding Judge, the Plaintiffs’ Counsel clarified that Plaintiff A. sought compensation in the amount of €30,000, despite earlier statements indicating that the total damage suffered was significantly higher.
The Prosecution then addressed the principal arguments made by the Defense. First, the Prosecution rejected the Defense’s argument that the charges concerning Plaintiffs R. and O. should be declared inadmissible due to the alleged mistreatment of the Accused by the NDF. The Prosecution argued that no connection existed between those events and the Dutch criminal investigation. According to the Prosecution, the alleged mistreatment had no impact on the evidence used in the present proceedings.
The Prosecution then addressed the Defense’s argument that the alleged acts of sexual violence could not qualify as crimes against humanity. The Prosecution maintained that the sexual violence formed part of a broader attack against the civilian population in which the NDF participated. According to the Prosecution, the Accused acted within that broader context. With respect to the qualification of the acts as torture, the Prosecution argued that the required specific purpose had been established. Referring to international cases, the Prosecution submitted that sexual violence and rape may constitute torture under certain circumstances.
A significant portion of the Prosecution’s submissions concerned the assessment of the evidence. The Prosecution argued that the Court should evaluate the evidence as a whole rather than focus on individual inconsistencies. According to the Prosecution, the Defense isolated discrepancies while ignoring the overall consistency of the evidentiary record.
During the hearing, a short adjournment was granted to allow the Accused to leave the courtroom briefly. Following the adjournment, the Prosecution elaborated on various aspects of the evidence. It defended the reliability of witness identifications of the Accused and addressed in detail the testimonies relating to Plaintiffs M., F., H., D., R., O.., A, J., and S. The Prosecution maintained that the statements were mutually corroborative and supported by other evidence in the case file.
The Prosecution also defended the civil claims submitted by the victims and expressly aligned itself with the position advanced by the Plaintiffs’ Counsel. Regarding the sentencing, the Prosecution argued that comparisons with international criminal cases were of limited value due to differences between legal systems and procedural frameworks. The Prosecution further argued that the reasonable time requirement had not been violated, given the exceptional complexity and scope of the case and the large number of witness examinations conducted.
The Prosecution concluded by referring to a statement previously made by Plaintiff R. during the exercise of her victim participation rights, in which she expressed that she had never expected to receive justice in this manner. Following the conclusion of the Prosecution’s submissions, the Defense Counsel requested an adjournment until 2:00 PM to prepare its response.
The Accused then indicated that he wished to address the Court personally. The Presiding Judge informed him that he would be given an opportunity to do so later during the hearing.
After an adjournment of approximately three hours, the proceedings resumed.
The Defense Counsel began by objecting to materials that had recently been disclosed by the Prosecution. According to the Defense Counsel, the information, including photographs of alleged interrogators, had been submitted at an extremely late stage of the proceedings. The Defense argued that it had not been afforded a meaningful opportunity to investigate or respond to this document. The Defense Counsel then reiterated the argument that the charges relating to Plaintiffs R. and O. should be declared inadmissible because of the alleged torture suffered by the Accused following his arrest. The Defense also maintained its position that the alleged sexual violence against the female victims could not be characterized as part of a widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population. According to the Defense, the Accused acted as an individual actor contrary to the wishes of the NDF.
Furthermore, the Defense again challenged the reliability of several witness identifications and testimonies, pointing to alleged influence by third parties and inconsistencies in witness accounts.
Regarding the civil claims, the Defense argued that uncertainty remained concerning the applicable limitation rules and whether legal remedies had in fact been unavailable in Syria during the relevant period.
At the same time, the Defense agreed with the Prosecution that evidence should be assessed holistically. However, it maintained that a holistic approach does not justify disregarding contradictions within witness statements.
Following the Defense’s submissions, the Court briefly adjourned to consider whether the materials recently submitted by the Prosecution should be admitted into the case file. Upon resuming the hearing, the Presiding Judge announced that the Court would not admit the documents. The Court considered the disclosure untimely, given that this was the final substantive hearing. Furthermore, the Court found that the documents would raise additional questions and procedural complications at this advanced stage of the proceedings. As a result, the Court rejected, among other things, the document containing names and photographs of alleged interrogators.
The Presiding Judge then granted the Accused the opportunity to make a final statement. The Accused began by commenting on descriptions of his appearance contained in the case file. He argued that certain physical characteristics attributed to him were inaccurate and drew attention to an eye condition which, according to him, had gone unnoticed by witnesses. The Accused spoke at length about the situation in Syria since 2011, developments in Salamiyah, and his personal background. He maintained that Salamiyah functioned differently from the portrayal presented during the proceedings and that the local judicial system had continued to operate during the relevant period.
The Accused further stated that he had travelled to Europe with good intentions and that, following his arrival, he became the target of a social media campaign that spread false allegations about him. In addition, he criticized various aspects of the case file and challenged the reliability of several witness statements. He once again denied having been present at certain locations and denied involvement in events central to the charges. The Accused concluded by asking the Court to render a just and fair judgment.
After the final statement of the Accused, the Presiding Judge formally closed the hearing. The Court announced that judgment would be delivered on 9 June at 1:00 PM.
[Note: The delivery of the judgment was later rescheduled to June 15, 2026.]
The proceedings were adjourned at 2:01 PM.
The next trial day will be on June 15, 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