Inside the Yarmouk Trial of Jihad et al. #19
TRIAL OF JIHAD A., MAHMOUD A., MAZHAR J., SAMEER S., AND WAEL S.
Higher Regional Court - Koblenz, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #19
Hearing Dates: June 10 and 11, 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 19: Summary
CVT’s 19th trial monitoring report details days 33 and 34 of the trial of Jihad A., Mahmoud A., Mazhar J., Sameer S., and Wael S in Koblenz, Germany. On the first day covered by this report, the court heard a new witness from Yarmouk. The examination focused on the establishment of checkpoints in the camp, the growing influence of the Free Palestine Movement (FPM), an incident involving the accused Wael S. and a bus driver, and demonstrations in 2012.
On the second day of this week, the witness continued his testimony. He gave further evidence regarding the demonstration. Defense counsel questioned him about his social media activity, his encounters with the accused Sameer S. and his brother, the incident with the bus driver mentioned during the previous trial day, and his ability to distinguish between different weapons.
Trial Day 33: June 10, 2026
The first trial day began with the examination of a new witness, W17. After the standard witness instruction, the presiding judge questioned the witness about his connection to Yarmouk.
He explained that he had grown up in Yarmouk but later moved to a town two kilometers outside Yarmouk, where he worked. He returned to Yarmouk after his house there was destroyed in an airstrike.
He further explained that, following the fall of the Assad regime, he felt able to testify before the court without fear of repercussions for himself or his family.
The presiding judge then showed him pictures of around 20 individuals, of whom he identified Wael and Sameer S., Jihad A., Moafak D., F19, Mazhar J., and another person.
Next, the examination turned to the establishment of checkpoints in Yarmouk. He explained that some checkpoints had already existed before he moved back to Yarmouk in 2012, but that their number increased significantly during that year. He further explained that it was common knowledge that the use of weapons and arrests at these checkpoints had become mostly arbitrary. Upon further questioning by the judge, he named six of the checkpoints.
The judge continued by asking when he first became aware of the growing influence of the Free Palestine Movement (FPM) in the camp. He testified that he became aware of it through the movement’s growing online presence, particularly on Facebook, where young men were encouraged to join. He also recalled buses arriving from the Golan Heights, which he associated with many young men who had died as martyrs.
The judge also inquired whether he knew the names of prominent FPM members in the camp. He mentioned both the movement’s political leader, F18, and its military leader, F64. Additionally, he explained that, in his understanding, the FPM included subgroups that were also armed in order to fight “terrorism”. He added, however, that the groups were difficult to distinguish from one another.
The witness subsequently recounted an incident involving the accused Wael S. He recalled seeing a violent incident in 2012 involving Wael S. and a busload of civilians.
The questioning then focused on the demonstrations in Yarmouk Camp. The witness testified that he participated in one demonstration in the summer of 2012, during which he joined a procession of people moving toward Palestine Square on Lubya Street. When asked to further describe the location of the demonstration, he replied that he stopped across from the bakery after hearing shots coming from the direction of al-Quds Street. At that point, he was standing on a small street branching off Palestine Street and remained there, occasionally looking out to see what was happening.
The judge also asked him how he knew that the Shabiha were shooting. He replied that there was a well-known military camp nearby and that, to his knowledge, only members of the Shabiha were armed in that area. He added that he saw members of the Shabiha driving in their vans towards Palestine Street and that, although he did not see anyone shoot directly, he believed they were shooting because, to his knowledge, they were the only armed individuals and he could recognize them based on their military pants and black shirts.
Following this, the judge rapporteur continued the examination using maps. The witness indicated various locations of events he previously recounted on the projected map.
When asked how far away the individuals whom he identified as the shooters had been at the time of the demonstration, he replied that they were far away, but not so far away that he could not see them. He also explained that he did not see any injured or deceased individuals on his way back from the demonstration, but heard ambulances two or three times before arriving home. He further clarified that he remained near Palestine Street for around 30 minutes before fleeing because the sound of gunfire was getting closer. He explained that he learned about the individuals who had been killed or injured that day only after looking up reports about the demonstration on social media.
[15-minute break]
After the break, the judge rapporteur continued the examination by asking whether he had also attended any other demonstrations in Yarmouk. The witness explained that he had not participated in another demonstration but had heard about a demonstration on a different day that proceeded along Yarmouk Street toward al-Halsa. He testified that gunfire was also heard during this demonstration, but described it as warning shots that did not result in injuries.
The witness further noted that he knew the name of one young man who was shot during the first demonstration. According to the witness, the man was a student and journalist who had been filming the demonstration and was later shot. He explained that he knew this because he was acquainted with the victim’s father [presumably W11], whom he knew because both were seeking to inform the police about relatives they had lost and report the men they believed to be responsible.
When asked whether he knew of any snipers, the witness replied that he did not and that the shots had come from ground level.
[80-minute break]
After the lunch break, the judge rapporteur continued the examination by asking how residents of the camp distinguished between the different armed groups operating there. The witness replied that the groups were generally difficult to distinguish because many members wore masks, except when they wore identifying armbands. He further explained that, according to his understanding, every group of the secret service had its own military wing and that the groups often overlapped.
The witness was then asked how he knew the individuals he had previously identified in the photographs. He explained that he knew Wael and Sameer S. best, although he had not spoken much with them. He testified that he had repeatedly seen Sameer S. wering particular clothing on School Street and had exchanged brief glances with him. He further testified that Sameer and Wael S. were among the first to arm themselves in the camp and that he had seen Sameer S. at a checkpoint two or three times.
The judge next asked the witness to clarify the earlier incident involving the bus and Wael S. He provided further details, testifying to Wael S.’s actions at the scene and departure from the scene of the incident.
The witness was also asked whether he knew any of the other accused besides Wael and Sameer S. He explained that he recognized Mahmoud A. from having met him twice. He described Mahmoud A. as a brutal defender of the Assad regime in the camp who had shown complete disregard for the demonstrations. He added that he had seen Mahmoud A. at a specific administrative location, along with someone he regularly transported from there.
The witness further testified that he knew Sameer S. was a member of the FPM based on photographs showing him with the movement’s leaders at the beginning of the revolution.
He also recalled speaking with the wife of a first responder who had attempted to flee the camp but was captured and later killed in detention under torture. The witness testified that the man’s wife had asked him to convey her belief to the court that one of the accused was responsible for her husband’s death.
When asked for further details, the witness testified that the wife had reached this conclusion because the accused had previously threatened her husband. The witness noted that, in Yarmouk, when individuals were threatened by members of the Shabiha and attempted to flee, they were almost always arrested and killed in detention.
In the final minutes of the examination, the witness requested permission to show the court a photograph, which was granted. He identified the individuals in the photograph as male members of different subgroups of the secret police, including Jihad A. The witness described one of the men as one of the most feared figures in the camp and testified that he had built bombs and tormented many people. He also identified leaders of the FPM in the photograph.
The witness further recounted that a young woman had contacted him via Facebook. According to the witness, she stated that she had been arrested at a Yarmouk checkpoint and detained when she encountered one of the accused She alleged that he had raped her in front of four other women and burned her with acid.
The trial day ended at 3:50 p.m.
The next trial day will be on June 11, 2026, at 09:00 a.m.
Trial Day 34: June 11, 2026
On the second day of this week, the court continued the examination of witness W17. The examination focused on several buildings, including a building used by the FPM. According to the witness, individuals would randomly shoot at people from the building. He recalled one occasion on which he saw Wael S. leave the building and approach a bus carrying passengers. He explained that members of the armed group would often stop such vehicles and demand large sums of money before allowing them to continue.
Attention then turned to the alleged crimes committed by Sameer S. and F19. When the judge requested further details on their alleged crimes, the witness recalled arrests at the Al-Bashir Mosque. When asked whether there had been any witnesses to these arrests, he replied that he was not sure. He also testified that others had told him women were being raped in the streets and that members of the armed group attributed these acts to residents of Yarmouk camp.
The prosecution subsequently showed an aerial view of Yarmouk and asked where exactly the witness lived at the time of the demonstration. The witness pointed to a street where he resided in his wife's family home. Asked about the time of the demonstration, he responded that the demonstration had taken place “around noon, 1-2 PM".
The Prosecution next inquired if the witness knew a man, F66. The witness testified that he knew him only through social media and knew that he had gone missing, although he did not know when. He further testified that he had also been in contact with F66’s son, who lives in Sweden, through social media to discuss events in Yarmouk. According to the witness, his son had asked him for contact details for the Dutch police because he believed that the person responsible for his father’s death was in the Netherlands.
Asked about the demonstration, the witness testified that F66 and Jihad A. had been together at the time of the demonstration. He further affirmed that Jihad A. had not been shooting and that F66 had likewise confirmed this.
The judge then questioned the witness about the relationship between F66 and Jihad A. The witness reiterated that both had been together during the demonstration in Yarmouk. He also maintained that the two had remained in contact after Jihad A. had been indicted. When asked whether he had spoken with F66 about Jihad A., the witness affirmed that they had occasionally spoken about him on the phone.
The witness subsequently referred to videos published on TikTok by a man identified as F67, who, according to the witness, claimed that Jihad A. had not been present at the time of the demonstration but had instead been at F67’s restaurant approximately one hour away from Yarmouk. The witness offered to provide the videos to the court, which the court accepted.
Asked further by the judge about F66’s whereabouts during the demonstration, the witness testified that he did not know his exact location but only that he was at the demonstration. He added that he knew F66 and Jihad A. had had a dispute earlier that day, and he did not know how they had resolved it. The witness further noted the inconsistencies between F66’s statement that Jihad A. had been with him at the demonstration and F67’s TikTok post stating that Jihad A. had been at his restaurant.
The witness also referred to comments allegedly posted by Jihad A.’s brother on TikTok, in which, according to the witness, he told others not to “take his brother’s name in their mouth”.
The examination then turned to the witness’s TikTok activity. The witness testified that he regularly livestreamed and that approximately 2,500 people from Yarmouk consistently watched his broadcasts. He also explained that he would only discuss comments he considered relevant and ignore or delete other comments.
He was also asked whether Jihad A.’s brother had ever commented on his TikTok page. He replied that this had been the case and testified that the comments had generally been positive, although he suspected they were intended as a form of damage control.
The judge next questioned the witness about a man, F20. The witness confirmed that he knew him and testified that F20 had also been active on TikTok. He further explained that they had conducted livestreams together on TikTok following the fall of the Assad regime in 2024. When asked whether he knew his occupation, the witness replied that he only knew that he worked in construction.
The prosecution then asked the witness to elaborate on his contacts with Jihad A.’s brothers. The witness responded that he had spoken to them only by telephone shortly after Jihad A. had been indicted. He further testified that some men, including an individual whom he did not know, came to his apartment and spoke to him about Jihad A.’s innocence.
The witness added that, in his view, Western countries were the ones administering justice in cases such as these.
He further testified that Jihad A. had been a member of the FPM but that he did not know what role he had played in Syria.
He then referred to a livestream he had conducted on the day the indictment was read. According to his testimony, he broadcast the livestream outside the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Koblenz, during which Jihad A.’s brother posted degrading and insulting comments.
He was also asked whether he recognized anyone in the public gallery the day the indictment was read, to which he responded that he did not.
[15-minute break]
Asked about his role in Yarmouk and the checkpoints, the witness further explained that he worked as a medical assistant and sent medical supplies. He testified that he feared passing through military checkpoints because relatives were affiliated with the Free Syrian Army (FSA), making him identifiable.
He also noted that he was employed by the University of Damascus and was concerned about students there who opposed the regime.
Defense counsel Grassl then questioned the witness about the university identification card he had received as an employee and whether it facilitated passage through the checkpoints. According to the witness, the identification card offered no protection, and they generally allowed him to pass not because of the card, but because many guards at the checkpoints could not read.
Defense counsel Flintrop questioned the witness about how he had learned of the hearing in Koblenz. The witness testified that he had become aware of it through social media but could not recall where he had first seen the information or who had posted it, but that the hearing had been widely discussed online.
Defense counsel Flintrop continued by asking the witness about his arrival in Koblenz and his contacts regarding the proceedings. The witness explained that he had traveled to Koblenz by car with two of his friends, F41 and F68. According to the witness, his friends had traveled to Koblenz with him because they had themselves witnessed killing and injustice in Yarmouk and hoped to see justice done. He further testified that they had discussed the proceedings during TikTok livestreams.
Asked about his contacts with F40, he explained that he had no access to the case files and that he had only signed a document in his office and that this had been the only contact with the lawyer.
Asked with whom he had been the day the indictment was read, the witness clarified that he had been there with his friend F41, F40, and a woman, and that this had been the only day he had been in court.
The examination then, again, turned to the witness’s TikTok livestreams. Counsel Flintrop inquired whether the witness had expressed any personal opinions or commented specifically on the trial during those livestreams. The witness replied that he only discussed the events that had taken place on the day the indictment was read. He further testified that the comments had generally been positive and had encouraged him to continue documenting the proceedings. According to the witness, users also discussed the alleged crimes of the accused. He described many of the comments as gruesome.
The witness added that the wives of some of the accused had also commented during the livestreams and had posted defamatory statements about him. According to the witness, they accused him of having stolen furniture from their apartments. [Note: At this point, counsel Flintrop laughed]. Counsel Flintrop continued by asking the witness whether he had ever stolen furniture before being instructed by the judge to return to the matter under examination.
Defense counsel Flintrop next asked the witness whether he had taken photographs in the courtroom. The witness noted that he had not been permitted to bring his phone inside. He further explained that the only recording he had made that day was a livestream outside the courthouse and that he did not know whether anyone had screen-recorded it. He explained that such livestreams were generally available for only 24 hours.
The questioning then turned to a USB drive containing approximately 150,000 pictures. The witness clarified that the USB drive remained at his residence and that it contained photographs he had collected, mainly from social media and the FPM’s official website. According to the witness, many of the images depicted gruesome crimes and praised those responsible as “heroes”.
Asked about the material he had provided to the police, the witness estimated that he had submitted between 20 and 40 photographs. He explained that he had collected most of the material around 2014, after seeing a video in which he recognized his brother’s body. Defense counsel Flintrop concluded his questioning by asking for the witness’s TikTok username, which the witness provided.
The witness was then questioned about the checkpoints, including when they had been established and how they operated. He testified that checkpoints had been in place at the time of the demonstration, estimating that there was one approximately every five streets. He recalled seeing an individual’s weapon being taken at one checkpoint, without the individual being further harmed. He also testified that he had seen Sameer S. at a checkpoint in Yarmouk carrying a weapon.
Asked when Sameer S. left Syria, he testified that this had been after the airstrike on the mosque but that he did not know with whom he had left.
The witness further recounted an incident in which the FPM accidentally killed a young man from a certain family when intending to target his employer.
He also testified that the FPM had suppressed demonstrations in Daria Al-Midau.
Asked whether Sameer S. and F19 had ever been at the witness’s apartment, the witness explained that F19 had visited his apartment with another individual whom he could not identify, while his wife and children were in another room. According to the witness, the meeting took place in 2019. [Note: During this part of the examination, the witness became emotional and explained that justice had always seemed out of reach for him and that he had ultimately decided to speak about his experiences rather than remain silent. He also emphasized that he had not come to Germany to cause problems.]
He was then questioned about a family dispute between his family and that of Sameer S. and Sameer S.’s brother, F19. He explained that the dispute had occurred before the revolution, that it was unrelated to politics, and that it involved his brother and two of his wife's brothers. He recounted that he had not witnessed the beginning of the dispute and that Sameer S. attempted to mediate between the parties. He declined to identify other individuals who had been present.
Following this, the questioning returned to the dispersal of demonstrations. The witness testified that he had first heard gunfire before they began attacking demonstrators and that the response varied depending on the location and size of the protest. He added that some demonstrations had been dispersed using only batons.
Defense counsel Bodenstein also questioned the witness about a man, F69. The witness declined to provide details about their relationship, only acknowledging that he was in Germany. The defense counsel then asked whether he was his wife’s ex-husband, before the judge intervened, noting the witness’s discomfort and reminding counsel to focus on the subject matter of the proceedings.
The questioning then turned to the witness’s previous statements identifying Wael S. and Sameer S. as responsible for killings. The witness, again, confirmed that he had seen them at a checkpoint.
Regarding the incident involving the bus, the witness reiterated his description of Wael S.’s violent actions. He rejected suggestions that his earlier statements had indicated that the assault had taken place inside the bus, arguing that this was due to a translation issue.
The witness also testified that he had attended the demonstration with his brother, his son, and his wife’s children and he testified to the ages of the children. Asked why he had remained at the demonstration with the children after gunfire began, he explained that the children were in the car and that the shooting had been directed elsewhere. He added that the children were not scared because they were used to such attacks. The judge intervened when counsel questioned whether he had considered his children’s safety, describing the question as inappropriate and unnecessary.
[15-minute break]
After the break, defense counsel Greisner questioned the witness about several individuals, including his friend F41. Regarding another individual, F70, who lived in the Netherlands, the witness acknowledged that he had been contacted by him because of his contact with authorities and the trial in Koblenz.
Defense counsel Hedrich questioned the witness about his military service and his ability to identify different weapons. The witness explained that he had completed military service lasting approximately two and a half years around 1996 and had received weapons training. He noted that, although he had limited experience with weapons, he could distinguish between different sounds, including those of a Kalashnikov. He also confirmed that he had not served in the military after this period and had never served in a para-military unit.
According to the witness, it was common for conscripts to bribe officers and those who refused risked serious mistreatment. Defense counsel questioned the plausibility of the witness’s account, prompting the judge to remind counsel to maintain an appropriate tone. Asked to explain the different sounds, he testified that sniper fire typically produced a quiet whistling sound, whereas Kalashnikov fire was louder and more repetitive.
Following the examination, defense counsel for Wael S. argued that the witness’s testimony was inconsistent and insufficient. He argued that the witness had described incidents not mentioned by other witnesses, including the alleged use of batons to disperse demonstrations, and had been contradictory when questioned about his ability to distinguish between different weapons. Counsel further referred to alleged contradictions concerning the bus incident and argued that the witness’s claim to have been part of the opposition was inconsistent with his testimony that he had possessed a government-issued identification card and a government vehicle.
The trial day ended at 1:00 p.m.
The next trial day will be on June 17, 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