Ten inconsistencies in the Report Carter-Ruck
TEN INCONSISTENCIES IN THE REPORT “INTO THE CREDIBILITY OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO TORTURE AND EXECUTION OF PERSONS INCARCERATED BY THE CURRENT SYRIAN REGIME”
1) The Report ascribes to the “Assad regime” the crimes shown in the ten pictures, exclusively on the basis of the declarations of “Caesar” who remains cloaked in anonymity even though the Report asserts he has already escaped from Syria, together with his family. The reason for this anonymity is supposedly to keep him from being identified for his “security”. And yet the Report reveals his length of service (13 years) as a “photographer for the Syrian police”, a detail that would most likely allow the Damascus authorities to identify him immediately in any case – a blatant inconsistency.
2) “Caesar's” identity and job are supposedly attested by two (unspecified) “identity documents” and by the declarations of a person (also anonymous in this Report) claiming to be a relative of his and a member of the Syrian Opposition. No additional verification has apparently been carried out by the compilers of the Report. (They could, for example, have checked with the many Syrian policemen who have left the country and now live abroad, to see if they ever encountered or heard of this alleged police photographer).
3) The verification of the “good faith” of “Caesar” is supposedly attested by three conversations. The last one occurred on the 18th of January, the day that the Report’s “version for the press” was published, as the file name on the CNN site demonstrates. Is such an instantaneous transcription and verification credible? Or is it that no verification was felt to be required?
4) It does not seem believable that the Assad regime would have archived a compromising photographic data-base of 11,000 assassinations and, what is more, would have left the archive available to a simple police photographer.
5) It does not seem believable that a simple photographer of the police was able to get thousands of pictures of tortured and killed opponents.
6)The Report declares (pag. 6-7) that the reason why the pictures of execution victims were taken was “ …to allow a death certificate to be exhibited without the necessity that the families see the corpses, to avoid that the authorities had to give a truthful report about their death”. But it is hard to understand why the authorities (instead of simply declaring “desaparecidos” a given prisoner, as is common under dictatorial regimes), would have felt the need to exhibit a death certificate (“for cardiac problems” or “respiratory attacks”, pag. 13) to the families of 11,000 victims. In this case they could ask for the restitution of the corpse of their loved one and could discover signs of torture and killing.
7) All the pictures published in the Report hide the identity of the victims, by placing black rectangles over their faces. The reason given is the following: “ …for security reasons and privacy, the faces and other characteristics potentially suitable for the identification have been removed from the pictures” (note, p. 19). But this does not allow independent verification. Are the victims really “opponents” of the regime rather than, for example, people sympathetic to the regime, captured and killed by the “Syrian rebels” themselves?
8) Picture n. 4 shows the signs of a strangulation by means of the plastic strip shown in picture n. 5. But, who put that strip next to the corpse? And why? Certainly it could not have been the “military police” who allegedly tortured the victim in prison (otherwise the strip would be present in the picture n. 4, too). Picture 5 seems therefore to have been staged after the fact.
9) Pictures n. 6,7 and 8 show some gauze bandages. In picture n. 6 they are on a wrist. They seem to be the remains of an arm bandage (see the pictures n. 7). Apparently the police medicated these torture victims before killing them.
10) Picture n. 3 shows, in the upper left corner, the finger nail of someone who seems to be holding up the corpse to exhibit it and to allow a photographer to take a picture of it more easily. This particular attention would be strange if the picture was simply one of countless pictures of cadavers to be filed away in some archive. But if the picture had been staged for the purpose of propaganda in the mass media, then the extra attention would certainly have made sense.