Inside the Hasna A. Appeal Trial #4: Final Judgment in the Appeal of Hasna A.
APPEAL TRIAL OF HASNA A.
The District Court of the Hague – Badhoevedorp, the Netherlands
Trial Monitoring Summary #4
Hearing Date: March 25, 2026
CAUTION: Some testimony may include graphic descriptions of torture, rape or other violent acts.
Note that this summary is not a verbatim transcript of the trial; it is merely an unofficial summary of the proceedings.
Throughout this summary, [information located in brackets are notes from our trial monitor] and “information placed in quotes are statements made by the witness, judges or counsel.” The names and identifying information of witnesses have been redacted.
[Note: SJAC provides a summary of the proceedings while redacting certain details to protect witness privacy and to preserve the integrity of the trial.]
For the trial monitoring reports of the first instance proceedings, please see the Hasna A. case on SJAC’s website. Trial Monitoring reports of the Hasna A. appeal trial are a result of a partnership between the Syria Justice and Accountability Centre and the Criminal Justice Clinic at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
SJAC’s 4th trial monitoring report details day 4 of the appeal trial of Hasna A. in Badhoevedorp, the Netherlands. On this day, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment. The Hague Court of Appeal largely upheld the first‑instance judgment in Hasna A.’s case and imposed an unconditional nine‑year prison sentence (with credit for pre‑trial detention), while also denying the Defense's request to lift pre‑trial detention. It found proven the preparatory acts for terrorist offences, participation in ISIS, leaving her minor son in a state of helplessness, and enslavement as a crime against humanity committed jointly with another person. The Court acquitted her of the allegation of taking part in armed combat and held that certain matters were not before the Court, including a previously acquitted charge and an inadmissible child-endangerment count due to the statute of limitations. It additionally awarded the victim Z €15,000 in non‑pecuniary damages, finding the claim sufficiently substantiated under Syrian civil law based on expert reports.
Day 4 – March 25, 2026
On this trial day, the proceedings started at 11:31 AM. The Presiding Judge opened the session by announcing that the judgment in the appeal of Hasna A. would be delivered on this day. Hasna A. was not present in the courtroom, having waived her right to attend. Both the Defense Counsel and the Plaintiff Counsel were present. The Presiding Judge then proceeded to summarize the verdict.
Charges no longer before the Court
The Presiding Judge started by setting out that the charge concerning Plaintiff S. was no longer before the Court, as the Accused was previously acquitted of this charge by the court of first instance. The damages claimed by S. are therefore likewise no longer under consideration. Furthermore, the charge of bringing the Accused’s minor son into danger was declared inadmissible, as the six-year statute of limitations had expired.
Evidence
Moving on, the Presiding Judge noted that the Defense Counsel had previously argued that the testimonies made by Z. were unreliable and should therefore not be relied upon as evidence. The Court rejected this argument and relied on those testimonies as credible evidence.
Ruling
Preparatory acts
The Court ruled that it was lawfully and convincingly proven that, in the period from November 1, 2014 to February 26, 2019, the Accused was guilty of preparing terrorist offenses. This preparation consisted of adopting the radical ideology of ISIS, obtaining information about travel to Syria and the ISIS caliphate, and actually travelling there. The Accused also married an ISIS fighter and resided with him, disseminated ISIS propaganda via social media, and carried a firearm. Furthermore, the Court found that it had not been established that Hasna A. had renounced the ideology of ISIS during said period.
However, the Court ruled that the Accused did not take part in armed combat and therefore acquitted the Accused of that component of the charges.
Participation in a terrorist organization
The Court ruled that it was lawfully and convincingly proven that, in the period from February 17, 2015 to February 26, 2019, the Accused participated in the terrorist organization ISIS. The Court found that the Accused had travelled to the caliphate, had placed herself under the authority of ISIS, and had subjected herself to its rules under Sharia law. She had resided in ISIS-controlled territory, shared a household with an ISIS fighter, and disseminated ISIS ideology and propaganda to others.
However, the Court found that it had not been proven that the Accused committed these acts with others and therefore acquitted the Accused of that aspect of the charge.
Leaving a child in danger
The Court ruled that it was lawfully and convincingly proven that, in the period from March 11, 2015 to February 26, 2019, in Syria and Iraq, the Accused left her minor son in a state of helplessness. The Court found that the Accused had allowed her son to remain for a prolonged period in an area where armed conflict was ongoing, thereby endangering his life and health. The Court further considered that the Accused had consciously accepted the substantial risk that her son would be exposed to danger.
Previously, the Defense Counsel had argued that Hasna A. had intended to leave the territory. However, the Court did not find this to be established, noting that Hasna A. had remained in Syria for a considerable period and had sent messages to family members encouraging them to come to the ISIS caliphate.
Enslavement as a crime against humanity
The Court ruled that it was lawfully and convincingly proven that, in the period from May 1, 2015 to July 1, 2015, the Accused, acting jointly and in concert with another person, committed enslavement as a crime against humanity.
The Court found that the Accused had required Plaintiff Z. to perform domestic tasks, including caring for her child, thereby subjecting her to forced labor. The Court considered the broader context of the attack by ISIS against the Yazidi population in Sinjar, as well as the ISIS policy of enslaving Yazidi women and forcing them to perform domestic work. The Court found that the Accused had knowledge of both the attack and ISIS policy of enslaving Yazidi women.
In establishing this, the Court relied on the testimony of Z., who had been allocated as a slave to [redacted name], F3. The Court found that the Accused had stayed for approximately one month in the house of F3, where she was aware that Z. was being held as a Yazidi slave and was unable to escape. Hasna A. had benefited from this situation, had given instructions to Z., and had forced her to pray five times a day. In doing so, the Accused made a significant contribution to the enslavement of Z. Moreover, the Court noted that F3 had told Z. that she was required to comply with all instructions given by the Accused.
The Court concluded that there had been close and conscious cooperation between the Accused and F3, amounting to joint commission of enslavement. The acts committed by Hasna A. took place in the context of the attack against the Yazidi. Accordingly, the Court found all elements of the crime against humanity of enslavement to be satisfied.
Moreover, The Court took this conduct into account as an additional act supporting the charge of participation in the terrorist organization ISIS.
Damages
Unlike the court of first instance, the Court of Appeal found that it had sufficient understanding of Syrian civil law, based on expert reports, and that adjudicating the claim for damages would not impose a disproportionate burden on the proceedings. The Court concluded that the claim for non-pecuniary damages in relation to the proven facts of enslavement as a crime against humanity was sufficiently substantiated and that the Accused was jointly liable for this damage. The Court awarded Z. 15,000 euros in damages. This amount related specifically to harm directly resulting from the Accused’s acts and did not cover harm arising from events prior to those acts.
Sentence
In determining the sentence, the Court took into account the seriousness of the offenses and the personal circumstances of the Accused.
With regard to the seriousness of the offenses, the Court considered the nature and activities of ISIS as a terrorist organization. The Court found that the Accused had been aware, prior to her departure, of ISIS and the atrocities committed by the organization, and had nevertheless made a conscious decision to travel to and remain in ISIS-controlled territory for approximately four years. The Court further noted the irreversible consequences of this decision for her children and held that it was blameworthy that the Accused had travelled to the area. Additionally, the Court also considered the commission of enslavement as a crime against humanity, noting that Z. had been held as a slave and that the conduct of the Accused had formed part of ISIS’s attack against the Yazidi population. The Court emphasized that enslavement as a crime against humanity constitutes one of the most serious international crimes and is of concern to the international community as a whole.
With regard to the personal circumstances of the Accused, the Court took into account that she had no prior criminal convictions. It further considered expert psychological reports indicating that she suffered from mild intellectual disability and a personality disorder. The Court also took into account that, following the fall of the ISIS caliphate, she had lived with her children in camps under harsh conditions. Additionally, the Court noted expert findings that Hasna A. showed no indications of ongoing extremist ideology or a risk of radicalization.
In light of all these aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the Court imposed an unconditional sentence of nine years’ imprisonment, with deduction of time already spent in pre-trial detention.
The Defense’s request for the lifting of pre-trial detention was denied.
The proceedings were adjourned at 12:00 PM, and the Appeal trial concluded.
___________________________
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