Copenhagen, Denmark – The Danish High Court delivered a significant verdict on Wednesday, ruling against Ahmed Samsam, a convicted Danish national of Syrian origin who sought recognition from the Danish intelligence agencies for his alleged role as a secret agent during trips to Syria in 2013 and 2014. Samsam had filed a lawsuit against the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) and the Danish military intelligence service (FE) in his bid to clear his name and overturn a 2018 conviction by a Spanish court, which found him guilty of joining Islamic State militants in Syria.
The court’s decision, while not commenting on the validity of Samsam’s claims, refused to review his case and maintained that rendering such a verdict would not alter his legal standing concerning the reopening of his case in Spain.
In the courtroom, the Danish intelligence agencies declined to either confirm or deny Samsam’s assertions that he had worked for them, asserting that they could not disclose any information related to their informants, further complicating the matter.
This case has arisen against the backdrop of a series of scandals involving the two Danish intelligence services, marked by leaks of highly classified state secrets. Just last week, Denmark dropped charges against a former defense minister and a former spy chief over allegations of security breaches.
Despite the Danish High Court’s decision, Samsam’s lawyer, Erbil Kaya, has revealed that his client plans to appeal the verdict to the Danish Supreme Court. “He is disappointed, but today’s verdict doesn’t change anything about his possibility of reopening the case in Spain, as this case would probably have been appealed regardless of the verdict,” Kaya stated.
Ahmed Samsam was originally apprehended in Spain in 2017 and subsequently sentenced to eight years in prison for his alleged connections to Islamic State. Later, he was transferred to Denmark, where his sentence was reduced to six years. Throughout the legal proceedings, Samsam maintained his intention to have his criminal case in Spain reconsidered.
The Danish High Court justified its decision by pointing out that Samsam would likely have been convicted in Spain, regardless of any potential cooperation with Danish intelligence services. Spanish Criminal Procedure Law permits a review of a final sentence if new facts or evidence emerge that, if presented earlier, could have resulted in an acquittal or a less severe conviction.
While this verdict may not have provided the recognition Ahmed Samsam sought, it has highlighted the complex and sensitive nature of intelligence operations and their potential implications for individuals caught in legal crossfires. The legal battle continues for Samsam as he seeks justice in both Denmark and Spain.
