Obsah (7)

Article 157Article 176aArticle 288aArticle 289Article 26Article 55Article 226a

Judgement District Court of The Hague Criminal law section Three-Judge Criminal Division Public Prosecutor's Office number: 71/093308-21 Date of judgment: 26 April 2024 Judgment after trial The Distri

Article 157

Dutch Criminal Code), (to be) committed with terrorist intent (

Article 176aDutch Criminal Code) and/or B.

manslaughter (to be) committed with terrorist intent (

Article 288aDutch Criminal Code) and/or C.

murder (to be) committed with terrorist intent (

Article 289in conjunction with Article 83 Dutch Criminal Code) and/or D.

conspiracy and/or deliberate preparation of and/or abetment to commit the aforementioned offences (

Article(s) 176a and/or 289a and/or 96, paragraph 2 Dutch Criminal Code) and/or E. possession of one or more weapons and/or ammunition in categories II and/or III (

Article 26

, paragraph 1 of the Weapons and Ammunition Act) (to be) committed with terrorist intent and/or with the intent to prepare or facilitate a terrorist offence (

Article 55

, paragraph 1 and/or paragraph 5 of the Weapons and Ammunition Act); alternative charge at one or more points in time in or around the period from 1 January 2011 up to and including 31 May 2015, in Khan Shaykhun, or at least in Syria, in connection with a(

1. n)(non-international) armed conflict within Syrian territory, either alone or together and in association with (an)other person(s), he, the accused, participated in an organisation, namely a combat group of the [surname 1] family in Khan Shaykhun, consisting of (in any case) the accused and/or [name 1] and/or [name 2] ([name 2]) and/or [name 4] al-[name 2] and/or [name 5] al-[name 2] and/or [name 6] and/or [name 7] al-[name 2] and/or [name 7] and/or [name 9] (also referred to as [name 10]) and/or [name 11] and/or [name 12] and/or [name 13] and/or one or more third parties, whether or not using the name [name 14] , which organisation has the objective of committing international offences, namely pillaging, as a war crime. 2 at a point in time in or around spring 2014, in or near Khan Shaykhun, or at least (elsewhere) in Syria, either alone or together and in association with (an)other person(s), in the event of a non-international armed conflict within Syrian territory, in violation of the provisions of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, he committed outrages upon the personal dignity of, (and/
2. or)(in particular) humiliated and/or degraded (
3. a)person(
4. s)who did not (or no longer) participate(
5. d)directly in the hostilities, namely (
6. a)civilian(
7. s)and/or personnel of armed forces who had laid down their weapons, and/or (
8. a)person(
9. s)who had been placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by, - videotaping (or having videotaped) the heads of the deceased persons, while those heads are separated from the torsos, and/or - holding these heads up by the hair (or having them held
10. up)and clearly showing them (or having them shown) to the camera, and/or - referring to them (or having referred to them) as 'pigs of Assad' and 'dog'. 3Competence of the District Court and jurisdiction The court is competent to hear this case pursuant to Article 15 of the International Crimes Act (hereinafter: Wim). The accused is charged under Count 2 with the commission of a war crime in Syria, namely an outrage upon personal dignity. This offence is criminalised pursuant to the Wim. In addition, under Count 1 in the alternative, the accused is charged with participation in a criminal organisation whose objective it is to commit the war crime of pillaging. Pursuant to Article 1, paragraph 4 of the Wim, this offence is equated with an offence as defined in the Wim. Pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 1, under a of the Wim, Dutch criminal law applies to anyone who commits offences under that Act outside the Netherlands when the accused is located in the Netherlands. The accused travelled to the Netherlands in 2019 and has been residing here ever since. Accordingly, (secondary) universal jurisdiction applies with regard to Count 1 (alternative charge) and Count 2. Under Count 1 (primary charge), the accused is charged with participating in a terrorist organisation. Jurisdiction for this offence, in all its elements, is also established pursuant to Articles 6 and 8c of the Dutch Criminal Code (hereinafter: Sr).¹ 4The assessment of the charges 4.1. Introduction On 28 October 2019, three persons reported information to the police in Ter Apel concerning a Syrian man named [name 15]. He was said to be residing in the Netherlands, to have been the leader of a group of fighters in Syria and to have committed war crimes there. In 2020, the police received a video showing decapitated persons. According to anonymously provided information, [name 15] was allegedly involved in the making of this video. The police subsequently launched a criminal investigation under the name 26Kelso. The accused was arrested on 6 April 2021. Following the 2019 report and the submitted video, the suspicion against the accused initially focused on participation in a terrorist organisation (Count 1, primary charge) and the war crime of outrage upon personal dignity (Count 2). Later, the focus of the criminal investigation shifted more towards participation in a criminal organisation with the objective of committing the war crime of pillaging (Count 1, alternative charge). 4.2. Position of the public prosecutor At the hearing on 31 January 2024, the public prosecutor initially requested the accused's acquittal of the charges under Count 1 (primary charge) and Count 2 and requested the charges under Count 1 (alternative charge) to be declared proven. The public prosecutor demanded that the accused be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years, with credit for the time spent in pre-trial detention. Following an official report of findings drawn up by the examining magistrate on 29 March 2024 (which will be discussed in detail below), the public prosecutor revised their position. At the hearing of 12 April 2024, they demanded that the accused be acquitted in full. 4.3. Position of the defense Counsels pleaded for the acquittal of the charges at the hearing of 31 January 2024. They maintained their position at the hearing of 12 April 2024. 4.4. The assessment of the court 4.4.1. Suspicion of participation in a terrorist or criminal organisation The accused is accused of participation in organisations whose objective it is to commit terrorist offences (Count 1, primary charge) or pillaging as a war crime (Count 1, alternative charge). These offences were allegedly committed in Syria, in and around the town of Khan Shaykhun. For a better understanding of the context of this suspicion, below is first a brief outline of developments in Syria in general and Khan Shaykhun in particular during the period to which the indictment pertains. The court will then address the evidence in this case. The situation in Syria during the period to which the indictment pertains In the spring of 2011, an uprising broke out in Syria aimed at forcing reforms on the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. The regime attempted to suppress the calls for reforms with brutal force, but this did not bring the resistance to an end. From the summer of 2011, the opposition resisted by force of arms in response to the regime's violence. Retaliatory actions were carried out against government forces, and neighbourhoods in major cities as well as areas in the countryside were taken. One of the opposition groups involved was the Free Syrian Army. As the conflict in Syria progressed, the influence of jihadist groups who sought to establish an Islamic State gained increasing influence, particularly in the province Idlib. By the end of 2012, Islamic and jihadist factions appeared to be gaining the upper hand at the expense of the Free Syrian Army. Khan Shaykhun Khan Shaykhun is a town in the south of the Idlib province. The M5 motorway runs through Khan Shaykhun, connecting Aleppo with Damascus, Homs and Hama. During the period to which the indictment pertains, various checkpoints along the M5 were controlled either by the regime or by armed groups and/or rebel factions. The conflict between the Assad regime and the opposition also reached the strategically located town of Khan Shaykhun. In June 2013, regime forces occupied Khan Shaykhun. Even prior to that, several groups were active in the region. One of the groups operating in Khan Shaykhun was Liwa’ al-Thuwar Khan Shaykhun (hereinafter: LTKS). Liwa’ al-Thuwar Khan Shaykhun In response to the occupation of Khan Shaykhun LTKS, the brigade of rebels of Khan Shaykhun, was established. The founding of LTKS was announced in a video on YouTube on 17 June 2013. LTKS was formed through the merger of sixteen smaller battalions and aimed to liberate Khan Shaykhun from regime control. Many of the battalions that joined to form LTKS had already been active in the Khan Shaykhun region. Videos from 2012 that are available on YouTube show that several of these battalions were affiliated with the Free Syrian Army and had been involved in the fight against the regime for control of Khan Shaykhun. LTKS itself also appears to have been affiliated with the Free Syrian Army, as its logo contains references to the Free Syrian Army. In the founding video of 17 June 2013, it is stated that LTKS is under the leadership of Colonel Ahmad al-Marati. The members of LTKS mainly consisted of individuals from the Al [name 2] family. Online sources also refer to [name 1] as the leader of LTKS. [Name 1] is said to have been involved in the protests and the resistance against the regime since the beginning of the uprisings in Syria in 2011. He is also identified as the leader of rebel group Katiba al-Nasr, a group that merged into LTKS in 2013. Several witnesses have likewise identified [name 1] as the leader of LTKS. Videos on YouTube show that LTKS and its subordinate battalions participated in the conflict in Khan Shaykhun. LTKS was also affiliated with alliances with other militant groups, namely Jaysh al-Islam, Al-Jabhat al-Islamiyya and Sada al-Anfal, for the purpose of liberating Khan Shaykhun. After 2014, hardly any videos and messages related to LTKS' participation in the conflict appeared on the internet. Family ties in Khan Shaykhun According to the expert report by Dr P.M. Kurpershoek dated 28 November 2021, there was mutual rivalry between the [family name 1], [family name 2] and [family name 3] families in Khan Shaykhun. The rivalry appears to have concerned local power positions and the associated financial and material advantages, according to Dr Kurpershoek. All three families were involved in the armed conflict in Khan Shaykhun. Regarding family ties in the Khan Shaykhun region, Dr Kurpershoek reports that a shared family name does not necessarily mean that one defines oneself collectively as a group acting collectively in all its parts. Within the families in question, family members could also be diametrically opposed to each other. Family ties in Khan Shaykhun are extensive and include not only blood relations but also wider kinship. Thus, no inference can be made about a person's political choices or affiliations on the basis of a name. Tensions between the families in the town of Khan Shaykhun can also be inferred from the present case file. Several witnesses state in general terms that there was rivalry between the [family name 1] and [family name 2] families and that members of both families were armed during the conflict. More specifically, the accused has stated and substantiated with documents that his then minor daughter was married to one of the witnesses in this case, [name 16], who is related to the [family name 2] family. This marriage is being contested by [witness 2] personally. Also in this case, a threatened witness, [witness 1], was interviewed, who stated that seen that [name 21], the brother of witnesses [name 16] and his brother [name 17], was shot on the orders of the accused. The existence of tensions between the family of the accused and the family of [name 16] and [name 17] can furthermore be inferred from the threatening language exchanged between them, both online and in voice messages. Assessment of the evidence The question before the court is whether it can be legally and convincingly proven that the accused participated in a terrorist organisation or a criminal organisation in Khan Shayhkhun. Although the indictment covers a period from 2011, the court does not find sufficient evidence that there was a terrorist or criminal organisation in Khan Shaykhun prior to 17 June 2013. The case file does not sufficiently show whether armed groups were active in Khan Shaykhun, and if so, which battle groups these were, which persons belonged to them, what the structure was and with what purpose they acted. Moreover, the report by Dr Kurpershoek shows that the struggle in Syria was chaotic and dispersed across time and geography, involving numerous incidents. Therefore, the fact that an organised battle group was active in Khan Shaykhun in 2013, does not mean that this was also the case in the preceding period. Apart from a single photograph of the accused in camouflage clothing, the case file contains no visual material indicating the accused's participation in an armed group. Although the investigative team did uncover visual material relating to various armed groups, including LTKS, the accused does not appear in any of those images. Furthermore, the case file contains only brief and little detailed information regarding the situation in Khan Shaykhun and the various (battle) groups in Khan Shaykhun. The suspicion that the accused was involved in one or more organisation(
11. s)therefore rests mainly on witness statements. The court will have to assess whether facts and circumstances can be derived from those statements with sufficient certainty on the basis of which the accused's involvement in the organisation(
12. s)in question can be established. In doing so, caution is required, given the situation in Khan Shaykhun, as outlined above, and given the lack of other evidence to support the witness statements. In the following, the court will discuss the incriminating witness statements. Witness [witness 1] Witness2 stated that the accused is known in Khan Shaykhun as [nickname accused 2]. [Witness 1] saw that the accused attacked an army convoy nine to ten months after the start of the revolution, in 2011, on the highway near Khan Shaykhun and on the Jisser al-Shughur bridge. The accused was one of the first to open fire. The convoy consisted of tank transporters and green military buses. Each bus carried 60-100 soldiers. Only three soldiers survived the attack. One of the soldiers was shot and beheaded on the spot. The accused had pulled this soldier by the hair and kicked him around 20 times. [Witness 1] was able to see all this because he was standing to the side of the attackers, 150 to 200 metres from the highway. The other two soldiers were shot dead in the hospital by the accused and [name 3]. At that moment, [witness 1] was standing at the hospital entrance. He had seen the accused and [name 3] walk into the hospital with pistols and rifles, he then heard shots and then heard them say ‘We liquidated them’. The accused was one of the leaders of the group, which was under the command of [name 1]. At that time, the group did not yet have a name. A month later, [name 1] became the leader of LTKS. [Witness 1] stated that he knew this because he saw [name 1] giving the orders. The accused was a member of LTKS. He was also responsible for the procurement of weapons. Furthermore, [witness 1] stated that the group had set up a checkpoint on the highway when it had obtained weapons from the attack on the military convoy and that he saw LTKS pillaging passing cars and trucks. [Witness 1] also saw young people being abducted and placed in the trunks of cars. Furthermore, [witness 1] saw a minibus that refused to stop, being fired upon, resulting in the death of three women. The accused was present during the incidents witnessed by [witness 1]. [Witness 1] further stated that he saw the accused and Fouad Turki al-Yousef selling the looted loads and cars at the market. [Witness 1] further stated that, after LTKS, the accused became a member of Jund al-Aqqsa, then of Ahrar al-Sham and finally of Jahbat al-Nusra. [Witness 1] heard that the accused remained in Syria after March 2016. The statement of [witness 1] is detailed and highly incriminating for the accused. The examining magistrate examined the reliability of this witness and reported her findings in an official report dated 3 March 2022. On the basis of the information available to her at the time, the examining magistrate concluded that, on balance, she saw no reason to question the statements of the witness and to classify [witness 1] as not reliable. Subsequently, the public prosecutor dealing with special witnesses provided the examining magistrate with new information. As a result, the examining magistrate conducted further investigation and reported on them in an official report of findings drawn up on 29 March 2024. From her investigation, the examining magistrate found that the foundations under certain parts of [witness 1]'s statement were disappearing. In light of this, she amended her reliability judgement and concluded that [witness 1]'s statement should be regarded as not reliable and therefore unreliable. In view of this, the Court is of the opinion that it cannot use [witness 1]'s statement as evidence. Witnesses [witness 2] and [witness 3] One of the other witnesses who provided an extensive incriminating statement is [witness 2]. [Witness 2] is the brother of [witness 3], who also gave a statement, and left Syria on 29 January 2013. [Witness 2] stated that, at the beginning of the revolution in Khan Shaykhun the [family name 1] family founded a brigade that was active in Khan Shaykhun and as well as in other places. The accused was one of the leaders within the brigade and had a group of fighters. Acting as the accused's right-hand men were [name 9], [name 18], [name 19] and [name 20]. [Name 1] was the leader of the entire brigade. The accused was known in Khan Shaykhun as [nickname accused 2] and [nickname accused 1]. The brigade was initially called LTKS, but later joined Jaish al-Islam and then Jabhat al-Nusra. The brigade existed until mid-2014. [Witness 2] further stated that he saw several times that the accused committed robberies on the Aleppo-Damascus highway, shooting at cars. This happened behind [witness 2]'s house. The accused was one of the leaders during such attacks, according to [witness 2]. [Witness 2] further stated that he saw Turki al-Yousef, Mohammed al-Yousef and others buy the stolen items from the accused and subsequently resell them. Witness [Witness 3] has also given an extensive incriminating testimony. He left Syria on 29 January 2013. [Witness 3] stated that he saw the accused and his armed group pillage trucks carrying goods and cars at their own checkpoint on the road from Aleppo to Damascus. The accused ordered armed individuals to pillage certain cars and trucks and to open fire. The accused himself was also armed during these incidents. The pillaging was carried out by the orders of [name 1] and the accused. [Witness 3] had heard from his brother [name 21] that the road from Aleppo to Damascus was distributed among the group in Khan Shaykhun, and that a particular part of the road, for instance, would be assigned to the [family name 1] family for a certain number of days. During his examination by the investigating magistrate, [witness 3] specified his statement regarding his observations and testified that he had seen the accused involved in pillaging twice. On the first occasion, it concerned a car carrying sugar, which the accused and his group had seized, and on the second occasion, it involved a bus that was fired upon by the orders of the accused. [Witness 3] stated that he was able to observe this because he lived along the main road and went to stand with them. He would stand approximately 500 metres from the location where the pillaging took place. At the moment that the shooting began, he went inside. [Witness 3] further testified that he heard the accused, over the walkie-talkie, say 'shoot' when someone told him that the bus refused to stop. In addition, [witness 3] stated that the accused was a member of Jabhat al-Nusra and that he was a judge in the Idlib region, for which he had previously followed a Sharia course. The court considers that witnesses [witness 2] and [witness 3] testified at least partly from their own observation about the incidents in which the accused was allegedly involved. Nevertheless, the court views their statements with the utmost caution, as they seem to have a motive to testify against the accused, namely the conflict between their family and that of the accused. Moreover, [witness 2] and [witness 3] reported an online threat that allegedly came from the accused to the police, whereas the case file contains strong indications that they sent that threat to themselves. That makes it impossible for the court to simply assume the accuracy of their statements. The statements of [witness 2] and [witness 3] appear to be extensive at first glance but they are lacking in specificity and detail on incriminating points. They lack verifiable details such as a (clear) time indication. [Witness 2] only stated that the brigade of the [family name 1] family engaged in highway robberies from the beginning of the revolution in 2011, but his statement does not clarify when the accused was involved in the robberies and what was stolen. [Witness 3] has only stated that he witnessed two incidents involving the accused, without specifying when these incidents occurred. Furthermore, the witnesses have not provided detailed accounts of the incidents they observed, nor have they described in detail the precise role of the accused in these incidents. In view of all this, the statements of [witness 2] and [witness 3] must find significant corroboration in other evidence if they are to contribute to the establishment of the facts. The court is therefore faced with the question whether the statements of the other incriminating witnesses, namely [witness 4], [witness 5], [witness 6] and [witness 7], can provide this support. Other incriminating witness statements [Witness 4] is a distant relative of the accused and stated that the accused ‘was associated’ with LTKS, but also that ‘he had nothing to do with that organisation’, did not hold an important militarily role, did not fight, and had not fired a shot. [Witness 5] stated that the group to which the accused belonged consisted of ninety percent [family name 1] members and that [name 1] was the leader of this group. The name of the group changed from month to month. For instance, the group was sometimes known as the Rebels of Khan Shaykhun and at other times under a different name. The accused had allegedly been involved in theft and extortion since the beginning of the war and was known as [nickname accused 2]. The accused resold the items stolen from the trucks. [Witness 5] last saw the accused in Khan Shaykhun in 2012. [Witness 6] has also given an incriminating testimony. He stated that members of the [family name 1] family carried weapons and did not have a good reputation in Khan Shaykhun. The family carried these weapons to supposedly fight against the regime. Later, the [family name 1] family became a gang that stole anything of value in the name of the revolution. [Witness 6] further stated that the accused is not a good man, but that he does not know him personally. According to [witness 6], the accused participated in theft and robbery, as his entire family was involved in such activities. Another witness who has testified incriminatingly is [witness 7]. [Witness 7] stated that [name 1] was the leader of LTKS and that LTKS came out as rebels at the beginning of the uprising. [Name 1] had gathered dirty individuals from among his own people from (the area
13. of)Khan Shaykhun. These individuals robbed innocent persons and mistreated persons who were not rebels. LTKS members filled their own pockets. LTKS had authority over everything and had diverted the road so that people had to drive through Khan Shaykhun if they wanted to go to Aleppo or Damascus. Before people were allowed to drive through, their cars were completely stripped. [Witness 7] further stated that he did not know [name 1] personally and had never seen him face to face. The police showed [witness 7] a photograph of the accused and [witness 7] recognised the person in the photograph as [name 22] with nickname [nickname accused 1]. [Witness 7] stated that he did not know [name 22] personally, but that he was notorious in Khan Shaykhun and had harmed everyone in Khan Shaykhun. When asked what position the accused held within LTKS, [witness 7] replied: ‘it is one family, they are all the same. It does not matter who the actual leader is; if you are a part of it everyone has power.’ [Witness 7] further stated that he saw the accused for the first time in Greece. The court considers that the witness statements of [witness 4], [witness 5], [witness 6] and [witness 7] are very general as they do not provide clear indications of time and place, nor do they specify the precise role of the accused within the group/family. Although [witness 4], who was himself a member of LTKS, stated that the accused was ‘associated’ with LTKS, he also stated that the accused had nothing to do with the organisation. This appears to be contradictory. Skhetta stated that he had not personally witnessed the conduct allegedly committed by the accused. The basis of Skhetta’s knowledge is therefore unknown. The bases of knowledge of [witness 6] and [witness 7] are also unknown, as both have stated that they do not know the accused personally. Moreover, Aboammmash stated that he saw the accused for the first time while he was on his way to Greece. Accordingly, these witness statements have only limited evidential value. The District Court therefore concludes that these witness statements do not provide the necessary degree of corroboration for the statements of [witness 2] and [witness 3]. Conclusion In view of the foregoing, the court concludes that the case file and the proceedings at the hearing do not provide sufficient grounds to establish that the accused participated in a terrorist or criminal organisation. The court will therefore acquit the accused of Count 1, both the primary and the alternative charge. 4.4.2. The suspicion of the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity In 2020, the International Crimes Team of the National Police Unit obtained a video recording of approximately one minute in length from the Criminal Intelligence Team. The information provided with the recording stated that it showed fighters from the group of [name 15] who have decapitated several individuals, and that the recording was made at the Al-Busaliyya checkpoint in the spring of 2014. The recording begins with an image of a severed head lying on the ground. Later in the recording, a foot is placed on the head. It is also visible that a man holds up a second severed head by the hair towards the camera. In the recording, a man's voice can be heard saying, among other things, 'And this dog!' and 'The pigs of Assad' [laughs], 'pigs of Assad.' The accused is not visible in the recording. The core of the suspicion is that the accused, together with others, humiliated the two deceased individuals by making the recording, holding up the severed heads by the hair, and uttering humiliating words. The police had the voice heard on the recording compared with the voice of the accused, which had been recorded by the Immigration and Naturalisation Service. The police audio specialists who reviewed the audio fragments could not reach a conclusion due to issues with the language, differences in acoustics, the short duration of the spoken fragments, and the difference in speaking style (excited or calm). Consequently, the Netherlands Forensic Institute (hereinafter: NFI) was asked to conduct a comparative voice analysis between the voice heard on the recording and the voice of the accused as captured in five police-recorded telephone conversations. The NFI found that the sound quality of the recording — where the voice is audible for six seconds — is very poor, and that the recording conditions differ greatly, resulting in a lack of a proper basis for comparison. The NFI concluded that, due to the limited duration and poor quality of the recording and the difference in recording conditions, a comparative voice analysis is not possible. The only evidence from which it could be inferred that the accused is the person heard on the recording consists of witness statements. Witnesses [witness 3], [witness 2] and [witness 1] have all stated that they recognise the accused as the person on the recording. However, the court excludes the statements of [witness 1] from the evidence, while the statements of [witness 3] and [witness 2] do not provide sufficient grounds for the court to find that the voice on the recording is indeed that of the accused, for the reasons previously set out in the discussion of Count 1. The court will therefore acquit the accused of Count 2. 5The judgment The court finds that it has not been legally and convincingly proven that the accused committed the offences charged and acquits the accused thereof. This judgment was rendered by E.C. Kole LL.M., Presiding Judge, J. Snoeijer LL.M., Judge, B.W. Mulder LL.M., Judge, in the presence of F. Kok LL.M. and K. Muijsert LL.M., Court Clerks, and was pronounced at the public hearing of this District Court on 26 April 2024. 1 The charged participation in a terrorist organisation comprises five elements (A-E). With regard to elements A–D, jurisdiction is established on the basis of Article 6 Sr in conjunction with Article 2, paragraph 1, under 3 of the Decree on International Obligations Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. As for element E – which is considered a criminal offence under the Weapons and Ammunition Act – the District Courts finds jurisdiction under Article 8c of the Dutch Criminal Code, given that extradition to Syria is not possible due to the absence of a treaty relationship with that country, and the offence referred to in element E is also punishable under Syrian law (cf. The Hague Court of Appeal 26 January 2021 (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2021:103) and 6 December 2022 (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2022:2421). 2 This witness is a threatened witness

Article 226a

, first paragraph, in conjunction with Article 344a, first paragraph of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is unknown whether the witness is male or female. For the sake of readability, the District Court consistently uses he.