LANDMARK TRIAL AGAINST ALLEGED SYRIAN WAR CRIMINALS, WHAT NEXT?

World

Thu 30 April 2020:

Media and the public packed the courtroom on April 23, the first day of the trial, including many Syrians who had travelled several hours to Koblenz. 

Local prosecutors have been demonstrating how the world could try war criminals.

During the first few days of a landmark case focusing on crimes against humanity by members of the Syrian regime, the court heard details of years-long investigations.

Two Syrians – Anwar Raslan, a former colonel who defected from Syrian military intelligence, and Eyad al-Gharib, who allegedly worked for him – are being trialled for their complicity in the torture of around 4,000 people and the deaths of 58 others, among other crimes, in the Higher Regional Court in Koblenz, south-western Germany.

Both had lived as refugees in Germany but were arrested in February last year. They have been in prison since.

German prosecutors are using a legal principle called universal jurisdiction, which allows them to bring cases before German judges, regardless of whether the accused or their crimes have a close connection to Germany.

Prosecutors are using “novel investigatory strategies” in this trial, explained Kroker, who, in his role as an independent lawyer, is also representing seven joint plaintiffs in the case.

“Background investigations enable prosecutors to move on these kinds of trials more quickly. And this case also shows the necessity and utility of international cooperation, especially within the European Union.”

As the Germans began looking for Syrian witnesses – particularly those who had been held at Branch 251 – they regularly contacted other war crimes investigators around Europe. They ended up with witnesses in Germany, Norway, Sweden and France.

“Every statement we took would lead to another witness statement,” the police investigator told the court; interviewers would always ask the Syrians if they knew anybody else who had been held at Branch 251.

“At some stage, we decided we had to finish. We took about 70 statements that fit into the time period.”

The investigation also included more standard police methods – such as a photographic line-up where victims were asked to identify Raslan, a month-long wiretap and a search of Raslan’s home and electronic devices.

The first stage of the trial ended on Wednesday. The next stage resumes in Koblenz on May 18. 

What next?

The German federal prosecutors’ goal is to place Raslan, and his aide, at Branch 251 over the aforementioned 17 months.

As yet, it remains unclear what the defence’s strategy might be.

Raslan and al-Gharib willingly gave details of the work they did in Syria to immigration authorities and German police.

The defence asked the federal police officer: Were they, and other asylum seekers, warned that this information could potentially be used against them?

He did not have an answer. 

Additionally, German immigration authorities are not supposed to grant asylum to anybody suspected of war crimes. 

It also became clear that, thanks to his military seniority at the time of his defection, Raslan was considered an important asset to the Syrian opposition in Europe.

Because of that, he may have been advantaged in getting a German visa for himself and his family in 2014.

A leading Syrian dissident, Riad Seif, vouched for him and Raslan was part of a wider Syrian circle that attended peace negotiations in Geneva in early 2014, a representative from the German Federal Foreign Office told the court. 

Raslan did not appear to have been questioned by immigration authorities, the police investigator said. 

He also admitted that some of the witnesses, whose statements were used to build the case against Raslan and al-Gharib, were also ex-Syrian military. No charges have been brought against them. 

Lawyers representing the Syrians in the case have already said that, in strictly legal terms, none of those things should make a difference as to whether Raslan and al-Gharib are personally found guilty or not. But their defections and honesty could be taken into account during sentencing if they are.  

But that is some time away – the trial is expected to take up to two years, possibly longer.

Because of the German legal “principle of orality”, which requires oral evidence to be given before the judges, documents such as visa applications and letters about social welfare benefits all had to be read out, in order to be admitted into evidence.

Perhaps in some ways, such dogged bureaucratic mundanity is welcome.  

“I’ve heard about fair trials but this is the first time I have experienced one,” said Hussein Ghurair, a Syrian journalist and one of the joint plaintiffs. 

“It’s such a fair trial that the judge even made sure to ask whether the defendants could hear her properly. And whether they’d had enough time to communicate with their lawyers.

“When we were being interrogated, we were blindfolded and handcuffed. We were powerless. Now, we want the truth to be told, we want to reveal what is still happening to our friends in Syria today and we want that to be told through a fair trial.”

Photo Caption: Members of the Syrian Organisation for the Victims of War display pictures documenting the torture of detainees inside the Assad regime’s prisons and detention centres, on March 17, 2016, in Geneva, Switzerland. The photographs were taken by a former military policeman of the Syrian army, known as ‘Caesar’, who defected and fled Syria in 2013 [Philippe Desmazes/AFP]

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *