Inside the Yarmouk Trial of Jihad et al. #18: Three Coffins, Many Questions: Witness Testimony Continues
TRIAL OF JIHAD A., MAHMOUD A., MAZHAR J., SAMEER S., AND WAEL S.
Higher Regional Court - Koblenz, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #18
Hearing Date: May 27 and 28, 2026
The Center for Victims of Torture (CVT) provided support to SJAC to monitor this trial and prepare the first six monitoring reports. CVT has continued the monitoring of this trial from report seven onwards and has edited them according to its own style guidelines.
CAUTION: Some testimony may include graphic descriptions of torture, rape or other violent acts.
This is an informal summary of the proceedings and not a verbatim transcript. CVT has chosen not to use the names of witnesses or detailed information that could be used to identify them.
Trial Report 18: Summary
CVT’s 18th trial monitoring report details days 31 and 32 of the trial of Jihad A., Mahmoud A., Mazhar J., Sameer S., and Wael S in Koblenz, Germany. On the first hearing day, the court heard two witnesses regarding the events of July 2012 in Al-Qadam and Al-Yarmouk. The first witness testified about his son’s death and burial and was extensively questioned about later contacts with individuals connected to the accused Jihad A. The second witness recounted that he had only observed the events from a distance and had no firsthand knowledge of the accused’s involvement.
On the second day this week, the session continued with the testimony of the witness heard the previous day. The court reviewed video footage of a funeral procession and questioned the witness about earlier statements, the sources of information he had received from others, and the circumstances surrounding his son's death and burial. After further questioning by the defense, the witness was dismissed without being sworn in.
Trial Day 31: May 27, 2026
The hearing began at 10:04 a.m. The presiding judge first confirmed the presence of all parties to the proceedings. Several defense attorneys appeared as substitute counsel and were formally appointed to represent the respective accused without additional cost.
The first witness, W16, was then brought into the courtroom. After being instructed on his duty to testify truthfully and on the legal consequences of false testimony, his examination began.
The witness first provided information about his personal background and his life in Damascus. He explained that he had grown up near Al-Yarmouk Camp and had lived there with his family.
He then described the events surrounding the day his son, F49, was killed. According to his testimony, a small demonstration took place after Friday prayers. While staying at his brother’s apartment, he later heard gunfire coming from the direction of Palestine Roundabout and the Al-Buhassan bus stop. Knowing that his son was attending another demonstration, he immediately went out to search for him.
The witness, visibly emotional, recounted how he eventually learned that his son had been shot and killed. During this part of his testimony, the proceedings had to be briefly paused a few times.
After the hearing resumed, the witness gave a detailed account of his search for his son, recovering the body, and arranging the funeral.
He remembered that his son had initially been taken to a house. Together with relatives and others present, he attempted to transport the body to a cemetery. According to the witness, gunfire was repeatedly directed at them during this process. Because it was impossible to return along the original route, those involved split up, each attempting to reach the cemetery separately via alternative routes.
The witness further testified about the circumstances of his son’s burial. The burial took place later that same day, while it was still daylight.
During the examination, he was extensively questioned about locations, routes, and distances. He described the positions of various streets, Palestine Roundabout, the biscuit factory, the Al-Buhassan bus stop, and the cemetery. He repeatedly emphasized that many details were not based on his direct observations and that much of the information had been relayed to him by others.
The judge rapporteur then continued the examination with maps and photographs.
The witness identified several locations on the maps, including Maliki Street, the biscuit factory, the area he believed the gunfire originated from, and the cemetery where his son was buried. He also described his movements between his brother’s apartment, the area of the demonstrations, and the burial site.
A significant portion of the questioning focused on the direction the shots had come from and on distinguishing between what he had personally observed and what he had learned from others.
He was also asked about the term “Shabiha.” He described them as pro-regime armed groups and testified that information regarding their presence near the biscuit factory and at various checkpoints had been provided to him by other individuals.
Further questions concerned previous police interviews, the timeline of the events, demonstrations in Al-Yarmouk Camp, and the security structures and checkpoints that existed in the area at the time of and after the demonstrations.
[68-minute break]
Following the lunch break, the examination shifted to contacts the witness allegedly had in later years with individuals connected to one of the accused.
The witness recounted several telephone calls and personal meetings that had taken place years after the events in question. He testified that relatives and acquaintances of Jihad A. had attempted to convince him that, although Jihad A. had been carrying a weapon and had been present at the scene, he had not used it and therefore bore no responsibility for the events. He also described a meeting in a café and later encounters at family gatherings, during which similar topics were discussed.
He was then confronted with statements from earlier interviews and recordings of previous conversations. The questioning focused in particular on whether certain individuals had been present at Palestine Roundabout and on the roles of the General Command and the Shabiha. He repeatedly explained that he could no longer recall many specific details.
Subsequently, representatives of the Federal Public Prosecutor General, Counsel for the Private Accessory Prosecution, and Defense Counsel asked additional questions. These questions concerned the identities of various individuals, possible attempts to influence or intimidate the witness, contacts with the accused's relatives, and people from his personal environment. In particular, the witness described an encounter in which he felt intimidated by one of the accused’s relatives.
[22-minute break]
After the recess, W15, a relative of the first witness, was called to testify.
Following the standard witness instruction, he provided information about his personal background and recalled having lived on the same street in Al-Yarmouk Camp as one of the accused. However, he explained that there had been very little personal contact between them.
The witness testified about the events of July 2012 and the deaths of two young men. He acknowledged that he neither participated in the demonstration nor attended the funeral procession.
He explained that he remained at home during the events and observed the situation only from a distance. He recalled hearing gunfire and shouting, and seeing people running through the area, but emphasized that he had not personally observed any shooters or armed individuals.
The witness was further questioned about his relationship with the accused, later encounters in Germany, and possible contacts with relatives of individuals involved in the proceedings. He repeatedly testified that he had no firsthand knowledge regarding any involvement of the accused in the events under investigation.
During cross-examination, the second witness was asked about his relationship with one of the accused, particularly regarding instances in which he greeted him, despite previously describing their contact as minimal.
After the examination concluded, the witness was formally sworn in and dismissed.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court briefly discussed a video mentioned by the first witness, which may be submitted at a later stage. No statements pursuant to Section 257 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure were made by the parties.
The proceedings were adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
The next trial day will be on May 28, 2026, at 09:00 a.m.
Day 32: May 28, 2026
The hearing began at 9:10 a.m. The presiding judge first confirmed the presence of all parties to the proceedings. Several defense attorneys again appeared as substitute counsel and were formally appointed to represent the respective accused.
Counsel for one of the accused offered an explanation for the accused’s behavior on the previous day, stating that he had spent a lengthy period attending the proceedings in court yesterday and had missed scheduled medication.
Before the witness entered the courtroom, counsel for the Private Accessory Prosecution requested that a photograph be displayed in advance to ensure that the witness would not see any identifying heading or accompanying information.
The first witness who had testified on the previous day, W16, was then brought back into the courtroom and once again instructed about his duty to testify truthfully.
At the beginning of the examination, he was shown a photograph but noted that he did not recognize the person depicted.
The court then played the video that had been discussed during the previous hearing day. The footage showed a large funeral procession with several men carrying coffins while repeated gunshots could be heard in the background. Due to the poor image quality, individual persons were difficult to identify.
While the video was being shown, the witness described parts of the surrounding area and identified certain landmarks. However, he noted that he could not recognize himself in the footage. He nevertheless confirmed that, to the best of his recollection, the coffins shown in the procession included those of his son and other individuals who had been killed.
The witness was then questioned extensively about earlier interviews and previous statements.
The questioning focused largely on information he had received from other individuals after the events. He explained that friends, relatives, and other people from his community had provided differing accounts regarding who fired the shots, where the gunfire originated, and whether snipers had been involved.
Throughout this portion of the examination, the witness repeatedly emphasized that various individuals had given different versions of the events. While some had spoken of sniper fire, others had described automatic weapons or multiple shooters. He also noted that there were differing accounts concerning the exact injuries suffered by his son.
The defense counsel then asked additional questions concerning the political situation in the Al-Qadam district, the local balance of power at the time, and the circumstances under which residents were living.
The witness described the area as being largely controlled by local residents during that period, while government forces surrounded the district. When asked about the political views of the population, he testified that he could not reliably assess the beliefs of other residents.
Additional questions concerned the burial of his son, the absence of any medical examination or autopsy, and photographs and videos in his possession. The witness recalled that no autopsy had been conducted under the circumstances and that he still possessed several recordings related to his son and the funeral procession.
The questioning then returned to the video evidence. The defense counsel questioned the witness about its quality and content. The witness reiterated that he could not identify himself in the footage. Moreover, when asked by the defense xounsel whether participants in the funeral procession had been armed or had fired weapons into the air, he replied that they had not been armed.
The witness was then dismissed and was not sworn in.
The presiding judge asked whether any statements pursuant to Section 257 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure would be made. No such statements followed.
The proceedings were adjourned at 09:50 a.m.
The next trial day will be on June 10, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
___________________________
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