Inside the Yarmouk Trial of Jihad et al. #20: [Inside the Investigation: Police Testimony on Witness Interviews and Identifications]

TRIAL OF JIHAD A., MAHMOUD A., MAZHAR J., SAMEER S., AND WAEL S.

Higher Regional Court - Koblenz, Germany

Trial Monitoring Summary #20

Hearing Dates: June 17 and 18, 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 20: Summary

CVT’s 20^th trial monitoring report details days 35 and 36 of the trial of Jihad A., Mahmoud A., Mazhar J., Sameer S., and Wael S. On the first day of this week, the court heard further testimony from W3, a police officer who had previously testified before the court. W3 was questioned about the 2023 interview he conducted with P1 concerning the demonstration in Al-Yarmouk Camp, including P1’s identification of alleged regime members and the use of maps and photographic arrays during the investigation. The judges, furthermore, rejected a defense motion requesting further examination of video evidence, noting that it had already commissioned a metadata analysis of the video material. 

On the second trial day, the court heard testimony from W18, a police officer, regarding interviews she had conducted with several witnesses from Yarmouk, including P1, W1, and W5. As the interviews had taken place some time earlier, she relied largely on the interview records when answering questions. 

Trial Day 35: June 17, 2026

The hearing commenced at 10:00 a.m. The presiding judge confirmed the presence of all parties to the proceedings. Counsel Wulf, representing several plaintiffs, was also present. At the beginning of the hearing, additional court-appointed defense counsel were assigned to the accused Sameer S. and Mazhar J., at no additional cost.

The presiding judge, Dr. Kerber, announced that the chamber was currently attempting to obtain the contact details of a potential new witness,  F66, in order to summon him to testify on July 15 instead of a previously heard witness, P1.

The witness W3, a police officer who had previously testified before the court, was then brought into the courtroom [Note: For his previous testimony, see Trial Report #3]. After being instructed on his duty to testify truthfully and the legal consequences of false testimony, the examination began.

The examination initially focused on a two-day police interview with P1, conducted in November 2023 at a local police station.

According to witness W3, P1 had provided a detailed account of a demonstration in Al-Yarmouk during which his son was killed. W3 recalled that P1 had noted how painful it was to recount these events. He had further stated that he did not join the demonstration at its outset but joined the demonstrators from his house on Al-Quds Street. According to W3, P1 stated that, as the demonstrators moved onto Palestine Street, they encountered Shabiha forces who opened fire. W3 further recalled that P1 had stated that he fled into a side street but maintained a clear line of sight to the main group of demonstrators because his son was marching at the front.

According to W3, P1 had also stated that his son was shot and killed in the front row. W3 recalled that P1 had stated that Shabiha forces formed the first row of the security forces, while regular military units formed the second row, which P1 had described as a deployment pattern different from previous demonstrations. According to W3, P1 had also observed another young man, later identified at the cemetery as F49, running toward his son before F49 was shot multiple times.

W3 also recalled that P1 had stated that his son ultimately died in his arms after being carried into the side street by other demonstrators who were also under fire. According to W3, P1 expressed relief that his son’s body had been recovered quickly, as the regime frequently confiscated the bodies of deceased demonstrators at the time.

W3 then continued his testimony regarding the individuals whom P1 claimed to have recognized during the events or in the aftermath.

W3, in particular, recalled that P1 had stated that he identified several individuals, including all of the accused, in the first row of the security forces and in the second row of the military forces. P1 had explained that, although he did not know all of these individuals personally at the time, he was later able to identify them. P1 had further claimed that an individual named Mahmoud A. later came to his house on a motorcycle and threatened him, allegedly asking whether he wished to lose his second son as well. P1 had additionally stated that similar threats had been made by Wael S., who also passed by the house on a motorcycle.

P1 had also reported recognizing an individua, F72, at a market on Safad Street. In addition to that, P1 had stated that Jihad A. later contacted him via Facebook, claiming he had been coerced into carrying a weapon.

Regarding the accused Mazhar J., P1 had stated that he knew him as a customer and could locate his residence on a map. P1 had described Mazhar J.’s clothing, employment, and actions. Finally, W3 noted that according to P1, the affiliations of members of the family of Wael S. and Sameer S. were widely known.

The judge rapporteur continued the examination by referring to the maps and photographic arrays used during the 2023 police interview with P1.

The witness confirmed that P1 had been shown a map of the area on which he marked his own position on Al-Quds Street and indicated other key locations. According to W3, when P1 was presented with photographic arrays containing seven photographs prepared by the police, he generally stated that the individuals looked familiar or resembled certain military figures, but refrained from making definitive identifications, explaining that he only wanted to make assertions if he was absolutely certain. He did, however, associate certain facial features with the family of Sameer S. and Wael S. without assigning specific first names.

Further questions from the judge rapporteur concerned other individuals present among the security forces. According to W3, P1 identified two individuals as regular regime supporters but stated that he did not know whether they fired shots, as they were standing in the second row and his view was obstructed. He described another person, F71], as being present in the front row.

Additionally, P1 described a two-story building jointly used by regime forces and members of the Free Palestine Movement (FPM), noting that Sameer S. had frequently been stationed in front of it near the local checkpoints.

Following a short break of one or two minutes, representatives for the defense and the prosecution asked additional questions regarding the nature of the interview and the consistency of P1’s statements.

Defense counsel asked whether P1 had given conflicting accounts as to whether certain individuals had fired weapons. The witness replied that he could no longer recall the exact wording without reviewing the transcript. Further questions focused on how P1 had identified Mahmoud A. on the motorcycle. W3 clarified that P1 knew him "by sight" from the camp.

When questioned by defense counsel about potential discrepancies between different interviews, the witness maintained that he had prepared only for the interviews conducted on November 8 and 9, 2023, and could not comment on other interview records without proper authorization.

Finally, the witness noted that P1 consistently spoke from an "I" perspective rather than a collective "we", deliberately distinguishing between what he had personally witnessed and what he had learned through neighborhood hearsay.

The witness was subsequently dismissed unsworn.

[5-minute break]

Following the witness examination, Dr. Kerber read out a formal decision of the chamber.

The motion filed by defense counsel for Sameer S. on April 26, 2026, requesting an authenticity check, the production of the original video files, a verifiable chain of custody, and geolocation analysis due to potential manipulation, was officially rejected. The chamber referred to a lack of alternative evidence and clarified that the motion constituted a request to gather further evidence. Furthermore, the chamber had already commissioned a metadata analysis of the existing video material, and the court's statutory duty to clarify the facts did not require a second, repetitive evaluation.

The proceedings were adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

The next trial day is scheduled for June 18, 2026, at 09:00 a.m. 

Day 36: June 18, 2026

The presiding judge commenced the proceedings at 9:05 a.m.

She confirmed the presence of all parties and approved a change of defense counsel for two of the accused. Defense counsel Zerowski replaced defense counsel Greisner, and defense counsel Schönfelder replaced defense counsel Baumgart. A new witness, W18, a police officer, then entered the courtroom and was informed of her rights and duties.

The presiding judge questioned W18 regarding police interviews she had conducted with several individuals from Yarmouk. W18 explained that she had still been in training during one of the interviews, but had asked questions and collaborated with other officers in preparing the interview records. She also answered several technical questions about the examination of certain witnesses, that had already testified in court.

W18 testified that W5, a medical assistant from Yarmouk, had shown her a photograph of one of the accused on his phone and had primarily spoken about the demonstration on July 13 and a workers’ strike [Note: For W5’s testimony, see Trial Report #6]. According to W18, W5 had provided the names of six or seven individuals whom he alleged had fired shots during the demonstration. She further testified that W5 had not recognized all of the individuals depicted in the photographs shown to him by the police.

W18 also testified about her interview with P1 [Note: For P1’s testimony, see Trial Report #10]. She recalled that P1 had prepared a list of individuals he wanted to discuss, including, presumably, F38, as well as F73, Mahmoud S. [note: the accused before the Solna District Court, Sweden], Abu Sacher (Mazhar J.), F74, F10, and family members of F75.

W18 recalled that P1 had recognized Jihad A. and Mahmoud A. in a photograph and had pointed out that an Al Jazeera documentary had identified Jihad A. as a member of the Shabiha. She further recalled that P1 had recognized Wael S. and had stated that Wael S. had intended to kill during the demonstration, as he had aimed at the upper bodies of his victims.

W18 also testified about her interview with W1, who had previously been heard in court. [Note: for W1’s testimony, see Trial Reports #2 and #4.] According to W18, W1 had stated that she participated in the demonstration of July 13 and had seen a child being shot. W1 had further stated that the perpetrators had followed fleeing demonstrators into the side streets and had continued shooting there. According to W18, she had also stated that her sons knew F7, who had been killed that day, and had, furthermore, reported that, after she had published a video describing the violence and injustice, her sons were arrested.

W18 further recalled that W1 had described another occasion on which Jihad A. had knelt down before opening fire on a demonstration. She also stated that the injured had not received treatment at the nearby Halawe Hospital and had instead been treated in unofficial hospitals. According to W18, W1 had not recognized Mazar J. in a photograph.

Defense counsel Bodenstein then asked whether any misunderstandings could have occurred during the interviews. W18 replied that the interpreter had also spoken the Palestinian dialect, making misunderstandings highly unlikely. She explained that, after each interview, the statement had been translated and shown to the witnesses, who had been given the opportunity to make corrections.

Defense counsel Bodenstein subsequently again referred to the interview with a witness, possibly W5, whose testimony before the court differed in certain respects from his previous police statement. W18 remembered that she had not observed any translation or communication difficulties and that, as previously described, W5 had reviewed and confirmed the statement. The witness was then dismissed.

Defense counsel Bodenstein argued that the inconsistencies in W5’s testimony were not attributable to the police interview.

Proceedings were adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

The next trial day will take place on June 24, 2026, at 10 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