Inside the Hasna A. Trial # 1: Substantive Hearing in Hasna A. Case
District Court of the Hague – Schiphol Judicial Complex, the Netherlands
Trial Monitoring Summary #1
Hearing Date: October 14, 2024
CAUTION: Some testimony includes descriptions of torture. 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.]
SJAC’s 1st trial monitoring report details day 1 of the trial of Hasna A. in the Schiphol Judicial Complex, The Netherlands. On this trial day, the substantive facts of the case file pertaining to Hasna A.’s participation in a terrorist organization and aiding and abetting of slavery as a crime against humanity were questioned by the Judges, Prosecution and Defense. In addition, the personal circumstances of Hasna A. were discussed.
Day 1 – October 14, 2024
On this trial day, the proceedings began at 10:05AM at the Schiphol Judicial Complex, Badhoevedorp, the Netherlands before the International Crimes Law Chamber of the District Court of the Hague. The public spectators were located in the gallery above the courtroom behind glass, the press was located downstairs within the courtroom.
The case is tried with three Judges: Judge Snoeijer (Presiding Judge), Judge Wieringa and Judge Vriend, along with two court clerks. The Prosecution is represented by: Dr. Mirjam Blom and Dr. Corjan Kroon. The Defense Team is represented by: Dr. André Seebgregts and Dr. Nora Christiansen from KLS Strafrecht Advocaten law firm. The two plaintiffs are represented by the following counsels: Dr. Barbara van Straaten and Dr. Brechtje Vossenberg from Prakken D’Oliveira law firm. P1 was present within the courtroom in a shielded room with a Kurmanji translator, P2 was present online via the livestream.
The Accused, Hasna A., was sitting in the center of the courtroom when the public gallery curtain was lifted. The Accused was visible to the public if seated in the first row of the gallery but only the back of her head or side profile was visible.
Opening of the Trial
The Presiding Judge Snoeijer opened the trial of Hasna A. before the District Court of the Hague. He introduced himself first to Hasna A. and addressed that he recognized her from previous proceedings throughout this case, as well as her Defense Team. The Judge asked Hasna A. whether she was nervous, Hasna A. answered that she was. The Judge then welcomed the plaintiffs and explained that P1 was behind a shielded room and P2 was present online. The Judge reiterated for the press that the names of the plaintiffs must remain anonymous, and that the faces of the Accused and plaintiffs were to remain hidden.
Judge Snoeijer recalled that there had been eight pro-forma proceedings to keep the Court’s investigation open and that today the substantive facts of the case would be addressed.
The Judge then gave the word to the Prosecution to state the indictment and charges against Hasna A.
Indictment against Hasna A. (as delivered by the Prosecution)
The indictment consists of five charges that the Accused allegedly committed between the period of November 1, 2014 to November 2, 2022 in the Netherlands, Syria and Iraq. First, Hasna A. was accused of aiding and abetting slavery as a crime against humanity against P1 in the period May 1, 2015 to August 1, 2015 for ordering P1 to complete household tasks, take care of her son, make food for her and forced P1 to pray. Second, Hasna A. was accused of participation in a terrorist organization between February 16, 2015 to November 2, 2022. Third, Hasna A. was accused of committing preparatory acts with terrorist intent between November 1, 2014 and November 2, 2022. Fourth, Hasna A. was accused of endangering a child in bringing her 4-year-old son to Syria and Iraq between May 1, 2015 – November 2, 2022. Fifth, Hasna A. was accused of aiding and abetting slavery as a crime against humanity against P2 in the period May 1, 2016 to August 1, 2016 for ordering P2 to complete household tasks, prepare food and forced P2 to pray.
The Prosecution then requested an extension to the date of the charge of slavery as a crime against humanity against P1 to December 1, 2015. The Defense Team indicated no issues with this request but added a new document to the case file pertaining to a statement from October 8, 2015 by the Yazidi Rescue Office, which stated that P1 had been rescued the day before. The Prosecution briefly left the Courtroom to discuss this new addition. Upon their return it was concluded that while the document had been provided very late in the case, the Prosecution recognized its relevance. The Defense reiterated that this evidence was only being raised now given the extension of the date as it would have otherwise fallen outside of the temporal scope. The Judge concluded that the date would be extended to December 1, 2015 with the inclusion of this new evidence to the case file.
The Judge then proceeded to provide the program for the following trial days. Today the substantive facts and personal circumstances of the Accused would be addressed. Wednesday morning would be for P1 and P2 to speak through their lawyers as well as additional requested damages. Wednesday afternoon would be for the Prosecution’s final submissions. Thursday morning would entail the Defense’s final submissions, and the afternoon would be for rebuttal and surrebuttal by the Prosecution and Defense followed by the Accused’s final words, if any.
The Presiding Judge provided that today the Judges would address the substantive facts, first addressing Hasna A.’s involvement in IS, followed by the slavery charge against P1 and P2 and finally Hasna A.’s personal circumstances. The Judge then gave the word to Judge Wieringa to conduct questioning on her involvement in IS.
Judges’ Questioning on Hasna A.’s Involvement with IS
Judge Wieringa’s first line of questioning pertained to her shift in religious practices and appearance. Hasna A. elaborated that due to her difficult childhood and youth and her financial debt she had eventually decided to engage more with her practice of Islam. Hasna A. explained that she began to dress to express her religion, actively read the Quran and pray. Hasna A. recalled that she had been interning and training to work within hospitality but felt that her classmates were not accepting of the changes in her religious practices and wanted to get away.
The Judge followed up by asking for her reason for fleeing to Syria. The Judge acknowledged that moving to Syria was a big step to take solely on the basis of feeling unaccepted by colleagues for her clothes. Hasna A. responded that she was scared. Due to her difficult upbringing she said that when she was eighteen years old, she fell into the wrong crowd where she was naive and easily influenced. This was when she met the father of her first son. She explained that she got help from her family in that period but said that she was struggling mentally. Hasna A. elaborated that the father of her first son kept bothering her and stalked her. When she left her family and moved away to Hengelo, she had financial problems with paying rent. The police and child protective services were also involved, and she described that she could no longer deal with everything, and she wanted to get away. The Judge asked whether she was looking for an escape or an excuse to get away.
[Hasna A. becomes emotional, her voice breaks when speaking, the Judge acknowledges it and gives her a moment to collect herself].
The Judge proceeded to ask if her reason to flee to Syria was due to wanting to get away, why Hasna A. didn't pick elsewhere, like Morocco for example. Hasna A. stated that she recognized the Caliphate and felt that it was a requirement for her to go there to be able to lead her own life. The Judge then asked her whether she knew of what was happening in Syria at the time, Hasna A stated that she knew what was happening via social media and news but did not want to be a part of the "atrocities", for Hasna A. it was about her child and building a new life. Hasna A. addressed that the Prophet states that in the Caliphate you do not need to participate in murder and other crimes, she believed that she would be able to lead her own life. Hasna A. also stated that while she knew that there were conflicts in places, she did not think about these things or consider them when leaving the Netherlands. The Judge asked whether she had spoken to anyone about IS, in real life or on social media, about the atrocities they committed (the Judge explicitly referred to decapitations). Hasna A. responded that she did not talk to anyone about the atrocities, only about her clothing. The Judge then quoted a witness statement from the case file in which Hasna A. told the witness that she thought beheadings (of even her son) could be justified as the people are sent to a better paradise, Hasna A. denied that she had ever had such a conversation. The Judge asked for clarification on Hasna A.'s Facebook profile photo in which she had an IS flag with weapons on it. Hasna A. confirmed that she had changed her profile photo to the flag but when asked for the reason why, she said she thought it was a “pretty flag”. The Presiding Judge proceeded to ask for more clarification, he asked Hasna A. for her reasoning because if she knew of the atrocities and did not want to be a part of them, why would she make her Facebook profile the IS flag with weapons. Hasna A. responded that she had not considered the consequences of such a profile photo, she described herself as confused at that time and that it was about the flag not the weapons.
The Judge then asked about P3’s statement (a classmate from her internship) that indicated A.’s radical Islamic ideals. The Judge quoted P3’s statement, in which the P3 stated that Hasna A. had regularly spoken to her about IS and Jihad and that Hasna A. had told P3 that other branches of Islam must be destroyed. Hasna A. first denied knowing who P3 was but then denied having this conversation entirely, Hasna A. recalled that the only conversation she had had with the witness was about her clothing. The Judge addressed several encounters between Hasna A. and the Dutch police and municipality of Hengelo. Hasna A. recalled that the police had expressed concern for her and had only seriously warned her about her Facebook profile. The Judge also addressed that Hasna A.’s municipality case manager, P4 stated that Hasna A. had told P4 of her plan to leave and that P4 had stated that she was concerned for Hasna A. Hasna A. responded that she had told P4 that she had no bad intentions and did not want to be involved in the atrocities. The Judge then quoted from P3’s statement that Hasna A. had shown P3 videos of beheadings by IS and could arrange them, the Judge asked Hasna A. whether she had seen beheadings. Hasna A. answered that she had no need to watch such videos in the Netherlands and refused to do so, she confirmed seeing beheading videos when she was in Syria. The Judge acknowledged that Hasna A. had been warned and that evidently there were a lot of people that were concerned for Hasna A. at the time, the Judge asked why then she decided to still travel. Hasna A. responded that her Facebook account was removed in December but only went to Syria in February. The Judge asked then what the reason was to still go. Hasna A. responded that the reasons she had given about being bothered by people still applied. The Judge addressed two witness statements from that time in which Hasna A. was described as giving them a weird feeling, and that she would at any moment be able to come in with an AK47 or bomb belt and subsequently asked Hasna A. where this perception of her came from. Hasna A. responded that she did not know why the witnesses felt that way, Hasna A. said that she was not capable of doing such things at the time and that for her to get weapons or a bomb belt she would have needed her Facebook account, which she did not have anymore.
The Judge then asked how Hasna A. got in contact with IS to get to Syria, Hasna A. explained that she saw an advertisement online from a non-Dutch English-speaking man, who gave her instructions to buy plane tickets to go to Turkey and that she would receive instructions upon arrival. When the Judge asked whether she had even considered the danger in this as a single mother, Hasna A. explained that she had believed that within the Caliphate she would be able to lead her own life, like the olden days in the Caliphate. When asked by the Judge about her 4-year-old son (who was severely autistic) in her decision-making to leave she stated that she did not do any research into what his life would be like in Syria but that she could not leave him behind. The Presiding Judge asked for clarification of what she was thinking when she arrived at the Turkish border control entering a war zone with shootings and bombings with a child. Hasna A. responded that she was not thinking and that she just wanted to get away. Hasna A. recalled that she had not thought about education or extra support for her highly autistic son.
Hasna A. explained upon arrival in Syria she was held in a Madafa [guest house] with other single women, she stated that she had not expected it or heard about it beforehand. Hasna A. described her life in the Madafa as hard. She was not allowed outside alone and always had to be accompanied. Hasna A. explained that this was the reason why she married her ex-husband, Abu Zubeir (Hasna A. did not want to say his full name, the Judge said it was not necessary). Hasna A. said he was a Moroccan man and knew nothing about him before marrying him. Hasna A. explained that she did not know whether he was an IS fighter but had heard in the Madafa that he had joined IS. The Judge asked what position he held, Hasna A. responded that her husband did not want to say anything about it to her, but he would leave early in the morning and was back late at night. The Judge asked whether he had gone to battle, Hasna A. said she did not know as they had not spoken about it. Hasna A. confirmed that he carried a weapon but denied knowing which kind of weapon. The Judge then referred to Hasna A.’s police interview in which Hasna A. had specified the weapons her ex-husband owned to be a pistol and AK47; Hasna A. responded that those could have been the weapons. Hasna A. also elaborated on a story in which her ex-husband was severely burned and injured from a bombing. The Presiding Judge asked Hasna A. whether given her experience at the Madafa, her marriage with her ex-husband who was an IS-fighter had given her the peace she had sought. Hasna A. responded that her ex-husband was not a nice man. The Presiding Judge asked if she had wanted to go back to the Netherlands. Hasna A. responded that now she regretted it, but at the time she did not have the courage to ask for help, she was scared something would happen to her [Hasna A. becomes emotional, voice breaking]. Hasna A. said she could have faced execution for wanting to leave. Judge Wieringa asked whether she had spoken to anyone about these feelings, Hasna A. responded only with her father [Hasna A. began crying, the Judge told her could take a sip of water and made sure they could continue, Hasna A. responded she was ok to continue and grabbed a tissue].
The Judge asked whether Hasna A. knew that several witnesses called her ex-husband an Emir, a prince, Hasna A. denied knowing of this. The Judge then proceeded to ask clarification on her WhatsApp contact with her father, stating that in the case file there were messages indicating she had wanted him to join her because it was good there. Hasna A. explained that her ex-husband controlled her phone and that her ex-husband only spoke Arabic, he knew people that spoke Dutch and sent them to her to make her scared. Hasna A. said that she sent messages to her family to convince her ex-husband that she had no bad intentions. Hasna A. explained that she was alone and dependent on a man. She said she wanted her father who could talk with her ex-husband and other men [Hasna A. began to cry]. Hasna A. recalled that she knew that her father would not actually come. Judge Vriend then addressed a message in which Hasna A. had told her father that her ex-husband was doing bad things, that she wanted to divorce him, that she was scared and that he neglected her. Hasna A. responded that she had not thought about whether her ex-husband would read the message at the time. Judge Wieringa asked about photos of her children, her son and daughter with a headband of IS. Hasna A. responded that her husband had taken the photos, and he had sent them to her father and family. The Judge then asked why the message had been sent in Dutch, Hasna A. recalled that she had only written the message and that her ex-husband had control over her phone. The Judge addressed P1’s witness statement which stated that Hasna A. had boasted to her ex-husband when the photo of her son was in the Dutch news.
***
[20-minutes-break]
***
The Judge resumed questioning Hasna A. on P1’s statement of A.’s support of IS. When asked whether she had ever shown videos of atrocities, such as beheadings to others, Hasna A. explained that she had seen videos via her ex-husband, but did not like them. The Judge addressed P1’s statement that Hasna A. had made P1 watch videos, and that Hasna A. had been enthusiastic about them. Hasna A. said that this could have only been when she was at P5’s house (her Swedish neighbor) and that P1 was also present when P5 had shown the videos. Hasna A. said she could not tell P5 to turn them off. The Judge highlighted that P1 also stated that Hasna A. had said that the people deserved being killed off, Hasna A. responded that that wasn’t true, and that P1 could not speak to Hasna A. because they didn’t speak the same language so the other person present must have said those things. The Judge clarified that the other person in P1’s statement was Abu Ahmed who had shown Hasna A. the videos. Hasna A. denied ever speaking with him and said that she was not allowed to by her own ex-husband. The Judge elaborated that P1 stated that she was crazy about IS and loved it, and thought it was a good State. Hasna A. denied all of this, Hasna A. recalled that P1 confusing her with P5 and that they did not speak the same language. When the Judge asked about her previous testimony that she did things to seem loyal out of fear, Hasna A. responded that this was only online and never with P1 or P5.
The Judge asked whether Hasna A. had ever carried a weapon herself. Hasna A. elaborated that she had on request of her husband carried a weapon twice to defend herself and for her safety. Hasna A. explained that it was her first time holding a weapon and that neither her ex-husband nor anyone else told her how to use it. She said she found it scary.
Judge Wieringa said that she was curious because she could not find it in the case file, how life looked like married to an IS man and her son and how they would make ends meet. Hasna A. explained that her ex-husband received money monthly, and she was dependent on him. The Judge asked where that money came from and whether it was a form of salary. Hasna A. responded that it was a payment distribution from IS and that other necessities such as gas, water, light and food were paid with that money.
The Judge then moved on to questioning about her divorce from her ex-husband whom she had three children with and life afterwards. Hasna A. explained that she was pregnant with [redacted name] (youngest son) when they decided to divorce but it was only after his birth that were they officially divorced. Hasna A. explained that life in Syria with four children was difficult with no food, money or water. Hasna A. explained that she could get gifts of food and other survival needs if she registered in IS. The Judge acknowledged documents in the case file from IS that could provide diapers, milk, flour and other needs for children. Hasna A. explained that she had to register to take care of her children. When asked whether she could leave, Hasna A. said that she couldn’t (even though others could, Hasna A. said she had no money or contacts). The Presiding Judge asked for clarification whether when registered at IS one would receive an ID or card, Hasna A. explained that it was an unhandy little thing, but it was like an identity card, she said would always lose it but that her son would often go for her and he was recognizable at some point. Hasna A. explained that this service was like a foodbank, the Defense Counsel also added that this did not involve money, Hasna A. added that she could not beg or just go by people’s houses asking for money.
The Judge then proceeded to ask questions pertaining to the fall of the Caliphate in March 2019 and that according to the case file Hasna A. had left in January 2019 to al-Sha’afa. Hasna A. explained that she and the children traveled a lot in that period as the area became smaller. Hasna A. described that she had to go otherwise they would have ended up in fighting and shootings. The Presiding Judge asked whether she had experienced shootings. Hasna A. responded that she had been close to death, that there were constant planes and bombings but that it had been happening much earlier in Iraq. The Judge acknowledged a message sent in September 2015 to her father in which Hasna A. said that every day she was getting closer to death. The Judge also addressed that the children had experienced this too. Hasna A. recalled that she never saw them in panic, even at the very end, Hasna A. said that she kept her son calm and that the other children were too young to react. Hasna A. explained that Baghouz was the heaviest, she said that they slept on the road without shelter and were shot at from planes. Hasna A. elaborated that IS announced there was a location where civilians were able to leave early in the morning after morning prayer. Hasna A. described how she saw this as her opportunity to get out, and left with her four children to the location where trucks were waiting for them to be picked up and sent to the shelter camp.
The Judge asked how she looked back at her decision to leave, especially with regards to her eldest son [redacted name] who had received no schooling or extra care. Hasna A. responded that she regrets the decision to bring him with her a lot. She said that if she had stayed in the Netherlands, [redacted name] would have had a future, education and help. The Judge asked how her children were doing now, [Hasna A.’s voice changed and became noticeably happy, the Judge acknowledged this] Hasna A. responded they are doing well, and she is happy they are. She said that her son was getting the help and support he deserved and that she sees them individually every 2 weeks and all together once a month.
The Presiding Judge concluded their questions by asking how Hasna A. felt about being accused of promoting the crimes of IS. Hasna A. responded that she found it a wrongful accusation, and that she had not taken or made anyone’s life worse. She had only ruined her own life. The Judge asked how she felt about the accusation that because she had married an IS fighter and taken care of him and his children that she made his crimes possible. [Hasna A. began to cry] Hasna A. responded that she had to marry because without a man she was nothing.
The Judges then asked whether the Prosecution had any questions.
Prosecution’s Questions on Hasna A.’s Involvement in IS
Prosecutor Kroon began by asking why Hasna A. had decided in the Netherlands to follow a radical form of Islam. The Prosecutor pointed out that in the Netherlands most Muslims do not practice such forms of Islam. Hasna A. responded that she did not feel good at that time and did nothing regarding her religion before that. Hasna A. explained that for her to pursue religion she chose to start praying, reading the Quran and clothing. The Prosecutor reacted to this by saying that a lot of people read the Quran and not everyone becomes so extreme in their practice. Hasna A. responded that one does get asked to cover themselves with a headscarf and the rest of their body from top to bottom, but that if people chose not to do that, it is their own decision. The Prosecutor then asked Hasna A. whether she had said that Morocco and Saudi Arabia were not options for her to travel because she didn’t know anyone, and whether this had been the case with Syria (i.e. that she knew people in Syria). Hasna A. answered that she did not know anyone in Syria either. The Prosecutor asked whether she had heard of people who had also gone to Syria from the Netherlands to which Hasna A. responded no. The Prosecutor then highlighted that in the case file that there was evidence on IS social media pages of people helping each other join IS. The Prosecutor asked whether in the two months before her departure to Syria she had seen more people with a similar intention as her to build a new life. Hasna A. responded that she had seen the posts and said that no one had the same intention as her. Everyone else had intentions to join IS while she wanted to build a new life.
The Prosecutor then asked Hasna A. how she thought going to the Caliphate under Sharia law as a single mother with a child would be. Hasna A. explained that she was following old beliefs of life in the Caliphate and did not expect to end up on a Madafa. She simply believed that Muslims were required to complete the Hijrah [“migration”]. The Prosecutor then asked for clarification of whether one would still not have been considered sinful if she was not married and alone. Hasna A. explained that as a woman, she would have been vulnerable, but it was not illegal to not be married. The Prosecutor then highlighted that Hasna A. had said something different in her police interview, namely that she had intended to marry. Hasna A. explained that she had thought about maybe marrying later but not with an IS fighter only a civilian and that she was only 23 years old so she wanted to first get settled before marrying. The Prosecutor then asked whether she had taken money with her. Hasna A. responded that she had not but had envisaged perhaps starting her own business/shop or to make clothes. The Prosecutor asked how she imagined opening her own shop without money, Hasna A. responded that starting a business was different than in the Netherlands. There was no Chamber of Commerce in Syria [laughter in public gallery]. The Prosecutor asked if she didn’t speak the language and had no money, how she had decided to still go. Hasna A. responded that she had thought she would arrive at the Caliphate and figure it out.
The Prosecutor then asked how Hasna A. could have gone to the Caliphate considering the fighting that was happening, Hasna A. explained that she did not stop to consider the fights that were taking place, and that she did not want to get involved. The Prosecutor then asked how the Caliphate had to be understood considering that people had lived there before it was taken over. Hasna A. responded she did not know. The Prosecutor then addressed the case file, stating that Hasna A. had said that she had been confused and yet had very clearly chosen to go to IS, he then asked whether it could have been the case that she intended to join IS but later changed her mind when she arrived. Hasna A. explained that she only realized her misjudgment between Sharia and IS when she was in the Madafa. The Prosecutor asked if he was reading it wrong from the case file, to which Hasna A. answered that is what he may have understood but she had been there herself and knew what she had experienced.
The Prosecutor then asked clarification how her husband would have reacted to the messages she had sent to her father openly complaining about her marriage problems. Hasna A. recalled that she was very fortunate that he did not read it and that he would have reacted very heavily. Hasna A. also explained that he would get other people to read Dutch but did not know who they were. The Prosecutor asked about her request to her father to come to the Caliphate because life was good, and why she did not include this reason then. Hasna A. explained that she did not want to put too much explanation with it. The Prosecutor then asked what she would have done if he had come, Hasna A. said that she hoped he would help her because he spoke the language and could get in contact with people to save the children. The Prosecutor asked whether she had explicitly asked this question, Hasna A. said she had not because she did not speak to him often and her ex-husband took her phone away. The Prosecutor asked if she had used other social media platforms besides WhatsApp, like Skype or Kik. Hasna A. said that she mostly used WhatsApp and Skyped only once when she was still in the Madafa at an internet café they were brought to. The Prosecutor asked whether she had Skyped when she was alone at home, Hasna A. explained that she had no WIFI at home and only had internet for messages as she had little MBs and it was very weak.
The Prosecution then asked who she needed protection from when she had to carry weapon, Hasna A. explained that she was a woman and as such vulnerable to other men. The Prosecutor asked if it was not for during attacks or bombings, Hasna A. denied this and said it was only for use against other men.
The Prosecutor then asked about her trip to Mosul from Raqqa with her husband and whether she knew why they went there, Hasna A. responded she did not know and had guessed that he was there for work, but he did not explicitly tell her. The Prosecutor then clarified her travel destinations, stating that she went back to Raqqa, then spent a short period in Tabqa and went back to Raqqa, then traveled to Mayadin, Al Shaafah and Hajin; Hasna A. confirmed this.
Prosecutor Blom then proceeded to ask more about how Hasna A. shared her phone with her husband, Hasna A. clarified that it was her phone and would tell his family that it was him messaging them. The Prosecutor then asked about the Dutch people that could read the messages, Hasna A. explained that a man had stood outside her bedroom door (she did not see him because she was not covered) who could speak Dutch and warned her to behave and be on guard, to not speak up against her ex-husband. Hasna A. elaborated that when he left, she did not speak about it with her husband but that he gave her a look of warning. The Prosecutor asked why she didn’t tell such a story to the police, Hasna A. responded that she was tired at the time of questioning. The Prosecutor asked if her husband had made any other threats, Hasna A. explained that he had threatened to take her children far away [Hasna A. gets emotional]. Judge Vriend then asked whether Hasna A. had ever confronted him. Hasna A. elaborated that she would tell him that he was neglecting them, especially when days have passed when they didn’t get food or diapers but that he would tell her to keep her mouth shut and stop whining, Hasna A. recalled that they would speak a combination of Moroccan Arabic and Syrian Arabic to each other and that she could understand him.
Prosecutor Blom asked further questions on her contact with her father, reiterating that Hasna A. had previously said that she had no one in the Netherlands before leaving and yet later wanted her father in Syria. Hasna A. answered that she had had a bad youth, she had not known her father but once she had her son she began contact with her father. The Prosecutor claimed that there was another reason Hasna A. wanted her father to come, Hasna A. explained that she found it hard to connect with people, and did not really trust people because of her difficult background. The Prosecutor then asked why she didn’t reach out to her family once she had divorced Abu Zubeir for money or other help to leave, Hasna A. explained that her life was in turmoil and was only thinking about survival. The Prosecutor then said that surely, she could have asked her family for help, Hasna A. answered with “but how?”, to which the Prosecutor answered by asking for help. Hasna A. answered that she could not send long messages, it was only “hi, bye, how are you?”, to which the Prosecutor asked if she could only send short messages why she didn’t send help, Hasna A. responded that was not possible [Hasna A.’s tone is notably offended, laughter in the public gallery].
Prosecutor Blom then proceeded to ask questions about a bombing on her house, Hasna A. explained that it was in Raqqa and that she was pregnant with [redacted name] at the time and was out of the house for an echo scan. Hasna A. elaborated that the wait at the hospital took very long and so she went home with a friend and spent the night. She only heard the next day that her house had been bombed, her ex-husband was looking for her at the time, and she had been declared missing. Her ex-husband eventually found her via a woman who knew lots of other women, called “Umm A” (Hasna A. indicated she did not want to give her real name). Hasna A. explained that she stayed for a short time with Umm A, then for a short period in another house and then in another house until the birth of [redacted name], Hasna A. said she found all the moving awful.
Prosecutor Kroon then concluded questioning about messages sent to her Aunt [redacted name] in 2019 when she was in the camps, asking for money. The prosecutor elaborated that the messages showed her aunt telling her to ask for help, and that Hasna A. had responded that she was scared that she would end up in prison. Hasna A. responded that in the beginning in the camps she wanted financial help but knew that it was forbidden in the Netherlands. Hasna A. explained that she feared going to prison but still chose to be rescued with 11 other Dutch women.
Defense’s Questions on Hasna A.’s Involvement in IS
Defense Counsel Christiansen first asked Hasna A. whether she could recognize the psychologist’s analysis of her low IQ and her inability to see the consequences of her actions, Hasna A. stated that she could. Defense Counsel Seebregts then asked about the abuse committed by her ex-husband. Hasna A. explained that her husband had begun with verbal threats and eventually escalated to hitting and spitting. Hasna A. described that her hands and legs were at times full of bruises. Hasna A. also elaborated that she could speak only very broken Arabic with her ex-husband and in the beginning only with hand motions. The Defense Counsel asked whether she knew that he had remarried with a Syrian woman, Hasna A. confirmed that he had said he was going to remarry at the time of her divorce and later heard that he had done it. The Defense Counsel asked Hasna A. to clarify that she had spent three to four months in the Madafa before marrying her ex-husband and had only met her husband the day before their wedding.
The morning session ended at 13:25.
***
[55-minutes-break]
***
Judges’ Questioning on Hasna A.’s Alleged Commission of Slavery
Judge Vriend began by asking Hasna A. whether she knew of the Yazidi persecution by IS, Hasna A. said she knew that it was occurring but did not want to be a part of it. When asked by the Judge whether she knew about the announcement of the planned Yazidi attack by IS in 2014, Hasna A. responded she did not think about and while she knew of the Yazidi’s existence, she said she did not want to be kept busy with IS’s role. The Judge asked more explicitly about the attack in Sinjar by IS and how they treated the Yazidi community, to which Hasna A. responded she did not know anything. The Judge asked whether she knew about how Yazidi boys were sent to training camps and women were made to be slaves; Hasna A. responded she did not. The Judge asked whether she knew the word Sabaya, Hasna A. responded it was Arabic, the Judge then asked whether she knew that it meant slave, Hasna A. responded that she did. The Judge then asked about P1 and P2, and whether Hasna A. still stood by what she had stated at the Dutch police station; namely that she found their allegations a “terrible accusation”, Hasna A. confirmed that she did.
Judges’ Questioning on Hasna A.’s Alleged Commission of Slavery against P1
The Judge then asked Hasna A. to elaborate on how she met P1, Hasna A. stated that she arrived at the house and was met only by P1 not Abu Ahmed (the owner of the house). Hasna A. explained that when she had been married for 2 weeks, her husband had to go to Iraq/Mosul to see a doctor. Hasna A. elaborated that she did not want to be put in a Madafa and so he had asked Abu Ahmad if she could stay with him, because her ex-husband did not permit her staying alone at their own house. Hasna A. explained that her ex-husband had given her money, instructed her to stay in her room and not bother anyone and that she would meet P1 when she arrived. The Judge asked her to describe the layout of the house, Hasna A. recalled that she had a big room with a balcony, and that it was a spacious house. Hasna A. also explained that when Abu Ahmad was out for the day, she could leave her room. The Judge asked whether there were rules in the house, Hasna A. answered that her ex-husband had told her she could only be in her room, bathroom and kitchen. The Judge asked if she bumped into P1 in the house, Hasna A. answered that she would see P1 when she was cleaning the house, or other daily tasks like washing and cooking. Hasna A. recalled that she lived withdrawn in her room on her laptop, phone and with her son. The Judge asked if in the few times they encountered each other, how she and P1 would communicate with each other, Hasna A. answered that they could not really understand each other because P1 could not speak any English and Hasna A. at that time could not speak Arabic. The Judge then asked about her statement with the Dutch police in which she had said that she thought it was awful that a Yazidi woman was in the house but that she had still chosen to stay, Hasna A. answered that she could not do anything else. She was scared and had to obey her husband. The Judge then clarified whether P1 in doing household tasks had cleaned Hasna A.’s room, Hasna A. said she did not clean her room, and that Hasna A. did all her own cleaning, cooking and washing. The Judge asked whether P1 ever took care of her son, Hasna A. responded that P1 did not.
The Judge then pointed out that P1’s statement stated the opposite of what Hasna A. had testified, Hasna A. responded that it was a concerning accusation but could not do anything about it. The Judge then elaborated further on P1’s statement on how P1 had been kidnapped during the IS attack in the Sinjar district, that she was taken to Raqqa in Abu Ahmad’s house and that he had threatened to behead her son if she ever tried to escape. P1 had according to the Judge stated that Umm [redacted name] ([redacted name] is the name of Hasna A.’s son) to have made her cook, wash your son and called her an infidel, Hasna A. denied that this had been the case or that she had said that to P1, Hasna A. testified that she did everything herself. The Judge also referred to P1’s statement that Hasna A. had met Yazidis during her training in the Netherlands, Hasna A. answered that she did not remember telling P1 this and that it could have been when Hasna A. and P1 were at P5’s house and that P5 had told P1. The Judge asked whether P1 had done groceries with Hasna A. Hasna A. recalled that it had only been one time when Hasna A. asked her to show her around. The Judge asked if P1 was allowed outside, Hasna A. answered that she was but said it was not her concern if she wasn’t allowed. The Judge then asked how she could feel that way if she knew that P1 was a slave, Hasna A. answered that she saw P1 as human, and did not treat her the way the men treated her, Hasna A. said that she did not abuse P1 as a slave.
The Judge asked whether Hasna A. had ever helped or supported P1, Hasna A. confirmed that she had helped her with cooking on the Friday night dinners at Abu Ahmad’s house and when she was living with them Hasna A. cooked for herself and son. The Judge returned going through P1’s statement asking clarifying questions. He recalled that P1 had stated that she had asked to use Hasna A.’s phone to call her son, Hasna A. responded that she did not remember P1 asking. P1 had stated that Hasna A. knew of her son, Hasna A. answered that she knew nothing of P1’s son. Hasna A. denied P1’s statements that P1 had been in Hasna A.’s house, that Hasna A. had ordered P1 to clean her house and that P1 had never cleaned, cooked or cared for her son.
The Judge asked whether she knew that P1 was a slave at the time, Hasna A. responded that she could tell that P1 was there against her will but that she had not spoken to her about it. The Judge asked how Hasna A. knew that P1 was there against her will, Hasna A. explained that she had heard it via P5 when they were at P5’s house. The Judge asked whether Hasna A. knew if Abu Ahmad had abused P1, Hasna A. said she had not heard anything about it and did not notice anything when living there. The Judge clarified whether Hasna A.’s husband had ever asked Abu Ahmad to have P1 clean their own household, Hasna A. denied P1 ever being in their house.
The Judge then proceeded to ask questions about the Friday night dinners held at Abu Ahmad’s house. Hasna A. explained that she and P5 would prepare food together like couscous, the Judge reacted that P1 had stated that Hasna A. had never helped with preparations. Hasna A. responded that that had not been the case, because her husband had instructed her to help. The Judge asked if there were other slaves present, Hasna A. answered that P1, P2 and P6 (P6 had only been there once) had been present. The Judge asked Hasna A. to describe what she saw them do. Hasna A. explained that the three slaves sat together in the room with the other wives or in the kitchen cooking. Hasna A. recalled that she had not seen coercion/force by the men against the three slaves, but also said that she did not know what men did to other women.
The Judge then returned to asking about P1’s statement and Hasna A. essentially denied everything P1 had stated. Hasna A. said that she had never gotten mad at P1 if she declined to help her, that she had never made P1 out to be a Sabaya who had been kidnapped to work for her, that she had never told P1 to get up and work while Hasna A. herself did nothing besides shower and relax and that she had never told P1 to take care of her son. Hasna A. said that P1 had never asked her for help or to call her own son, that while they had often been alone, they did not ever speak, that she had never given P1 instructions, that P1 never received instruction from Hasna A. to clean her own house (Hasna A. said P1 had never been in her home), that she had never watched videos of beheadings and thought the people deserved it, that Hasna A. was crazy about IS, and that she had never made P1 read the Quran or forced her to pray.
Following this extensive list in which Hasna A. denied everything in P1’s statement, the Presiding Judge asked whether Hasna A. knew that P1 was Yazidi. Hasna A. said that she only found out later and did not try find out at the time. When asked how she did find out, Hasna A. explained confusingly that she had not heard it directly from P1 because she did not dare to directly ask P1, but via conversations with other people and that she had a “hunch” or suspected it. When asked how she had this hunch, [Hasna A. says she felt a bit sick/nauseous, Defense Counsel gives her water to drink] Hasna A. answered that she just had a hunch but had to keep her mouth shut. Judge Wieringa concluded by asking about the Friday night dinners and who exactly got tasks and what the other women would do, Hasna A. explained that the first dinner she, P1, P2 and P6 were all in the kitchen cooking while the other women sat in another room and did nothing.
Prosecution’s Questions on Hasna A.’s Alleged Commission of Slavery against P1
Prosecutor Blom began by asking questions about Hasna A.’s stay in Abu Ahmad’s house, when asked why her husband couldn’t receive medical treatment in Syria, Hasna A. said that was a good question but did not know. Hasna A. said that her husband was away from 2 weeks and that he went away often but later she was able to stay at home alone, Hasna A. said that soon after his return from this medical trip, she and her son joined him in Iraq again. The Prosecutor asked whether Abu Ahmad was ever home, Hasna A. said that during the day he was always out and that she was then allowed out of her room but not around the whole house. Hasna A. explained that she would take [redacted name] out every day and that she did not know whether P1 was allowed to be at home alone, but that Hasna A. would leave her there and guessed that P1 would be in her own room or cleaning the house.
The Prosecutor referred back to Hasna A.’s testimony from the Judges’ questioning that she would not treat P1 the way men did, asking her to clarify if she meant how all women or Yazidi women were treated by men. Hasna A. answered that she wanted to treat her like a human and did not want to treat P1 the way she herself was treated. The Prosecutor then asked if P1 was treated like a non-Yazidi woman, to which Hasna A. responded that women had to be active in Syria and that Moroccan men in the Netherlands and in IS were very different. The Prosecutor reiterated from Hasna A.’s statement with the Judges that she had found it horrible that P1 was in that house, and asked Hasna A. to clarify what she meant by that. Hasna A. responded that she found it inhumane that someone could keep P1 in their house against their will but that she also couldn’t or didn’t dare stand up for her. The Prosecutor asked why she didn’t tell this to P1, Hasna A. said that she did not speak to P1 about those kinds of conversation topics and that P1 did not know that Hasna A. thought this. The Prosecutor referred to P1’s statement that Hasna A. had no sympathy for her and denied her help, to which Hasna A. responded she knew nothing about this.
Prosecutor Kroon then asked clarification on whether Hasna A. knew anything about the Yazidi attack when she was in the Netherlands, the Prosecutor highlighted that the attack on Sinjar in 2014 was in the news for weeks as a huge crisis involving the UN Security Council and America conducting food deliveries. Hasna A. answered that she did not come across it at the time and that she was not sitting watching the news on TV 24 hours a day. The Prosecutor asked Hasna A. how she followed the news then, Hasna A. said via the internet. The Prosecutor responded that it was definitely on the internet at that time too, Hasna A. responded that it was not on her internet [laughter in the public gallery].
Prosecutor Kroon proceeded by asking about the Friday night dinners and that Hasna A. had testified that she did not know whether instructions had been given to P1. Hasna A. responded that she did not speak with Abu Ahmad so did not know whether instructions were given. The Prosecutor reiterated that Hasna A. had been present at the dinners several times and seen the slaves there but never saw them receive instructions, to which Hasna A. said that she received instructions. The Prosecutor then clarified whether Hasna A. meant to say that she received instructions but that P1, P2 and P6 did not, Hasna A. said that she got instructions from her husband and that at times the other women were sitting. The Prosecutor then asked, “who was the slave then actually, as it almost sounded like Hasna A. had the same position”. Hasna A. responded that at the dinners the slaves were at the same level as other women and that on Friday nights Hasna A. would have to help them. The Prosecutor reiterated that this contradicted P1 and P2’s story to which Hasna A. had no answer. The Prosecutor concluded by asking whether there was a dishwasher in the house, Hasna A. said no and that they had to wash dishes by hand.
Defense’s Questions on Hasna A.’s Alleged Commission of Slavery against P1
The Defense Counsel asked Hasna A. how many times she had been in Iraq, Hasna A. answered twice, and that the second time was for about a month in July when she was pregnant with her second child. The Defense Counsel then asked if P1 had a key to the house, Hasna A. said she did. The Defense Counsel asked whether P1 went outside alone, Hasna A. confirmed that P1 did.
The Prosecutor then asked to clarify the facts on her time in Iraq, saying that it was not possible for her to have been in Iraq in July 2015 as there were messages sent in September 2015 and in December 2015 that she was back in Syria. [Hasna A. gets progressively more confused about the timeline] The Prosecutor tries to walk through the timeline but through all the confusion, at some point asks whether Hasna A. “knew at all when she was in Iraq”. The Prosecutor came to the conclusion that Hasna A. was married in May/June, that she stayed in June with P1 for 2 weeks, and then went with her husband soon after to Mosul. Upon return in Syria, her husband left again briefly and then they went together to Iraq again sending a message in September that she had made it to Iraq (not in Mosul, Hasna A. did not know where) and returned to Syria in December 2015.
The Defense then asked considering the confusion and Hasna A.’s prior nausea whether a break could be taken.
***
[20-minutes-break]
***
Judges’ Questioning on Hasna A.’s Alleged Commission of Slavery against P2
Judge Vriend first checked whether Hasna A. was doing ok after the break, which she confirmed. The Judge then continued by referring to P2’s statement and experience as a slave. P2 stated that Abu Abdullah had taken her as a slave and at UNITAD once she had been saved, she had stated that she was in Raqqa for three and half years. P2 had stated that Hasna A. spoke poor Arabic but was still able to give instructions, and that Hasna A. was lying if she said that P1 did not cook at the Friday night dinners. P2 stated that P1 did the dishes. P2 stated that Hasna A. forced her to pray and that Hasna A. had said that Yazidi’s were going to hell and were heretics. Hasna A. denied that these statements about her were true. When asked by the Judge whether Hasna A. knew that P2 was Yazidi or a slave, Hasna A. responded that she could not remember. The Judge asked what Hasna A. did know or remember about P2, Hasna A. said that P2 had been present at the Friday night dinners and that Hasna A. had never personally asked P2. The Judge asked whether, as with P1, Hasna A. had a hunch that P2 was a Yazidi slave. Hasna A. responded that she had not considered it and could not remember much.
The Judge then referred to P2’s statement that Hasna A. had stayed for 2 months at Abu Abdullah’s house with P2. Hasna A. denied this entirely, saying she had only ever visited and cooked at Abu Abdullah’s house. The Judge rephrased this question and Hasna A. denied ever having stayed overnight with P2. The Judge said that P2 had stated that Hasna A. had forced her to do household tasks, like washing and cleaning. Hasna A. denied doing this. The Judge asked how many times Hasna A. had seen P2. Hasna A. said she did not know but that it was at P2’s house. The Judge asked whether the Friday night dinners ever took place at Abu Abdullah’s house. P2 confirmed that they did and that P2 would do household tasks and take care of her young daughter. The Judge said that P2 had stated that Hasna A.’s daughter [redacted name] had also stayed at their house, Hasna A. explained that P2 had only met [redacted name] right after she was born once somewhere in April-May 2016, and that Hasna A. had her own house at the time. The Judge elaborated that P2 had stated that Hasna A. was happy that Yazidi’s had been taken and that they were heretics and garbage, Hasna A. denied ever saying this. The Judge then referred to Hasna A.’s statement before the break that Hasna A. was shocked by encountering Yazidi’s in Syria, pointing out that in meeting P2 Hasna A. had encountered another one, the Judge asked whether Hasna A. had any recollection of meeting her. Hasna A. said she did not and only remember seeing her at the Friday night dinners.
The Judge then asked Hasna A. to walk through in simple terms how a Friday night dinner went upon arrival at Abu Abdullah’s house. Hasna A. explained that she would arrive at their house and encounter P2. Hasna A. said she never saw Abu Abdullah in real life. Hasna A.’s husband would have the groceries and Hasna A. had to cook. Hasna A. elaborated that she would go to the kitchen and sit with P2 (P5 had been present the first time, Hasna A. explained that P2 and P5 would speak but that Hasna A. did not understand them) and would drink tea or lemonade and would begin cooking. The Judge asked whether tasks would be divided. Hasna A. responded that she would do her own thing and that there were no separate tasks. The Judge then asked but surely in making a meal everyone would have their own pot making something together. Hasna A. responded that she did not get involved with other people’s tasks or tell P2 how to do things. Hasna A. explained that her ex-husband gave her instructions, and that Hasna A. would also clean. The Judge then asked Hasna A. about the number of people at the Friday night dinners. Hasna A. explained that in the beginning there were a lot of people but that it eventually became less, with only P2, Hasna A., Abu Abdullah and Abu Zubeir. Hasna A. explained that she did not know why it changed or what kind of life people were living.
Prosecution’s Questions on Hasna A.’s Alleged Commission of Slavery against P2
Prosecutor Blom first asked about the dinners where there were only four people present who Hasna A. would then have to cook for. Hasna A. responded that Hasna A. would cook for everyone. The Prosecutor asked who P2 would cook for, Hasna A. said only for Abu Abdullah. The Prosecutor asked why Hasna A. would cook for everyone while P2 would only cook for Abu Abdullah, Hasna A. explained that P2 would have already prepared food when she arrived and that Hasna A.’s ex-husband wanted her to have more food made from her hands. The Prosecutor asked if Hasna A. had ever gone to Abu Abdullah’s house and did not need to cook, Hasna A. said that every time she either had to help cook P1 or P2 or cook entirely. The Prosecutor asked if P2 wasn’t cooking, what was P2 doing, Hasna A. responded that she did not know, probably “her own thing”. The Prosecutor then asked which men were present at the dinners at P2’s house, Hasna A. responded she did not know. The Prosecutor asked that if she had to cook then she must have known for how many she was cooking, Hasna A. said she would guess the number and did not know who was present. The Prosecutor asked what Hasna A. would do when she had cooked for everyone to let the men know the food was ready, Hasna A. said she would signal her husband with a clap and that he would come and get everyone’s food, Hasna A. did not know who was in the room.
The Prosecutor then asked clarification on Hasna A.’s testimony that she stayed in her own house when she was pregnant or right after [redacted name] was born, Hasna A. explained that she had had a lot of houses but that she had moved to the one (Hasna A. described it as an Arabic house) where P2 met [redacted name] right after she was born. The Prosecutor asked what she meant by Arabic house, Hasna A. elaborated that it was a big residence with outside rooms that all faced into a garden. The Prosecutor referred to P2’s statement that Hasna A. and her ex-husband had stayed with them when their house had been destroyed. Hasna A. said this had not happened.
The Prosecutor then asked whether Hasna A. knew that P1 and P2 were ever hit or physically abused, Hasna A. answered she did not know. The Prosecutor asked if Hasna A. had ever seen them with bruises. Hasna A. said she had not. The Prosecutor asked whether Hasna A. knew that P1 and P2 had to against their will sleep with the men. Hasna A. said she had no idea what the men wanted or that what had taken place. The Prosecutor asked whether Hasna A. knew that the P1 and P2 were there against their will. Hasna A. said that she did not know the relationship with the men. The Prosecutor then responded that Hasna A. had said she knew that they were Yazidi women, Hasna A. said that she knew about their background but not personal things because she did not want to get involved. The Prosecutor continued to ask how if Hasna A. knew about the background information on Yazidis, how she did not think what P1 and P2 might have experienced. Hasna A. said that she did not think about it or talk about it with them.
Prosecutor Kroon asked whether when Hasna A. helped P2 if this came from herself or from her ex-husband, Hasna A. answered that she often did it for herself because she wanted to help because it was something in her and liked to cook. The Prosecutor then referred to Hasna A.’s testimony with the Judge earlier where she said she received instruction from her ex-husband, Hasna A. answered that sometimes she got told to help by her husband and other times by herself.
The Prosecutor then Hasna A. about the position of women such as P1 and P2 as opposed to herself. Hasna A. answered that she did not know. The Prosecutor asked if she had experienced it, Hasna A. answered that she had never seen or noticed it. The Prosecutor then asked how Hasna A. hadn’t noticed anything if she had been in many of the houses, Hasna A. responded that that did not mean she had seen or heard everything. The Prosecutor asked whether Hasna A. had noticed a difference in how men had spoken to P1 and P2. Hasna A. answered that she only was spoken to by her husband and that other men did not speak to her. The Prosecutor asked if her ex-husband had spoken differently to P1 and P2, Hasna A. answered she did not know how her husband spoke to them. The Prosecutor then referred back to the Friday night dinners because Hasna A. had been present at a lot of dinners but had not seen P1 or P2 receive instructions, even though this was the essence of why they were there, Hasna A. answered that she did not keep herself busy with that. The Prosecutor then argued that Hasna A. was in the house, Hasna A. said she was not present when instructions were given and that it was just wasn’t appropriate for her to speak with another man. Judge Vriend then interrupted to ask about the Yazidi Legal Network Commentary in the case file in which other women were considered higher than Yazidi women and whether Hasna A. noticed this, Hasna A. answered she did not. Hasna A. continued that the difference was that Hasna A. was considered “wife of…” and she was free while P1 and P2 were slaves and treated differently because of it.
Prosecutor Blom then clarified that Hasna A. did know P1 and P2 were not free, Hasna A. responded that at some point she did. The Prosecutor asked why Hasna A. did not dare to be alone with P1 and P2, Hasna A. said she feared what would happen if she would get involved in the life of Abu Abdullah and Abu Ahmad. The Prosecutor asked if P1 and P2 were scared of her to which Hasna A. answered, “could have been”.
The Defense had no questions for Hasna A.
Judges’ Questioning on Hasna A.’s Personal Circumstances
The Presiding Judge led the elaboration on the reports in the case file pertaining to Hasna A.’s personal circumstances. The Judge began by addressing that Hasna A. has been detained for 737 days, almost 24 months and that he had seen her criminal record and noted that she had never been jailed before. The Judge elaborated that in the time that she had been detained she had met with several experts who have drafted 3 reports and were to be discussed. The Judge went through each report, summarizing the key findings.
The first report was the NIFP (Dutch Institute for Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology) tripartite report written by a psychologist, psychiatrist and environmental researcher. From the report it was evident that Hasna A. had not had a nice youth, her father was out of the picture and her mother had psychological issues. Hasna A. had been severely neglected and had experienced violence and abuse. She had lived with several foster families but also in institutions and had also been homeless. In 2010, Hasna A. gave birth to [redacted name], when she was 19 years old and moved to Hengelo where she ended up building a €40,000 debt and became depressed. From the environmental research, it was found that in September 2014 she was still wearing Western clothes and only a few months later was wearing Muslim clothing and posting/following IS on social media. The report found that Hasna A.’s radicalization process had gone very quickly, and that by December 2014 she cut contact with people in her social environmental and planned her exit to Syria. The Judge concluded that this was about 25 years of Hasna A.’s life summarized in 2 minutes and checked whether he was missing anything, Hasna A. said that he had summarized it well. The Judge continued that Hasna A. was also considered to have a cognitive disability derived from her very low IQ score of 81-96 while she is verbally very strong, he asked Hasna A. what she thought of this. Hasna A. responded that she was surprised to hear that she had gotten such a low score and doubted whether some of the questions asked related to IQ at all.
The Judge continued that the report stated that due to her traumatic and unsafe background, she had developed a personality disorder which meant that Hasna A. had two sides to herself. On the one hand, she was a caring woman who was motivated to be a good mother and cared for her family, while on the other hand being egocentric, she could quickly attack and enter into conflict. The report described that she was avoidant in looking away, fleeing and walking away. The report stated that these disabilities had played a role her decision to go to Syria. The Judge quoted the report stating that Hasna A.’s cognitive disabilities had meant that she had “barely delved into her trip, had limited realization in what would happen to her” and could not appreciate the consequences of her actions. The report thus concluded that the terrorism and endangerment of her son had contributed to diminished responsibility. The report could not conclude on the influence of Hasna A.’s cognitive disabilities on the slavery charges as she refused to speak about it.
The report also addressed that the chance of reoffending and violence was low, but that Hasna A. had impulsive flight behavior and thus required extensive support in establishing her practical affairs, religious practices, partner choices, household tasks, finding a house and taking care of her children. The Judge asked whether she felt she needed that too. Hasna A. responded that she knew of this condition and said that it would be nice to have help.
The Judge then continued onto the second report which was based on 6 conversations with NTA and addressed her ideological conviction could lead her to be violence. The report indicated that before her trip, Hasna A. was influenced by IS propaganda and to make a quick and sudden decision to travel to Syria. Hasna A.’s knowledge of Islam is limited and that she was up to date on the violence happening in Syria but that her decision was based on her desire to leave the Netherlands. The report continued to state that Hasna A. avoided her own contribution to the Yazidis and thus it is possible that she had extreme thoughts. Hasna A. responded to the report saying that she could not find herself in the report and that she did not like the man who led the conversation. The Judge continued that the expert thought that Hasna A. could still have extreme views like traveling to the Hijrah, Jihad or Caliphate but that this does not align with her intention to do her own thing which makes her unpredictable. Hasna A. explained that she is speaking with an Imam, the Judge asked what they spoke about, Hasna A. explained that it was about daily things, like her children not about Jihad or Hijrah because they don’t want to talk about it. The Judge asked why she didn’t want to talk about religion with the Imam, Hasna A. said that she definitely wanted to but had not gotten to it. Hasna A. elaborated that she did not think she was vulnerable to extremism saying that she did not know who she might fall in love with and was open to a non-Muslim. The Judge continued that the expert had said that she needed support on psychiatric and social levels and needed a social safety net in friends and family, Hasna A. said that she would like that kind of support because she had not experienced it before. The Judge asked whether she regretted her decision and would not make the same decision in the future, Hasna A. responded that she had learned her lesson and wanted to protect her children now. The Judge pointed out that she had a child at the time too, Hasna A. answered that now she was different and had a different perspective.
The Judge asked what her future could be like, Hasna A. responded that she had learned Spanish and wanted to start a small to middle sized business in hospitality. The Judge asked why she had chosen to learn Spanish and whether she planned to move away, Hasna A. responded that she just wanted to learn a new language and did not plan to move.
The Judge went through the final report by the probation office (Reclassering) in the Netherlands which stated that the risk of reoffence and extremism was moderate and agreed with the NIFP report that with stressors, Hasna A. could react impulsively. Hasna A. reacted that she can close herself off but wanted to work on it. Reclassering had stated that if imprisonment was less than 4 years, she had to receive a conditional punishment with lots of requirements, the Judge asked what she thought of this. Hasna A. stated that she found it ok.
The Judge continued about her 4 children, 2 sons and 2 daughters, that are all living together and asked how often she sees them. Hasna A. answered that she sees 1 child every 2 weeks and once a month them all together. The Judge asked whether contact was going ok with them, Hasna A. responded that it was and that she called them too. The Presiding Judge asked if she had anything else she wanted to mention, Hasna A. said she did not.
Judge Vriend asked whether Hasna A. had spoken with the Imam about her radicalization, Hasna A. said that she does not talk to him about her life in Syria. The Judge asked if they spoke about other forms of Islam, Hasna A. said they chose not to speak about that [murmuring in the public gallery]. The Judge explained that his question was more about whether she still got anything from her religion, Hasna A. responded that she still saw Allah as her lord and creator and engaged with her religion 5 times in the day.
Prosecution’s Questions on Hasna A.’s Personal Circumstances
Prosecutor Kroon began by asking 10 years later, what Hasna A. regretted doing, Hasna A. answered that she regretted everything, that she had decided to move somewhere life-threatening for not only herself but also her child without thinking. The Prosecutor asked if she regretted anything else, Hasna A. said that being with her ex-husband and all the horrible things he had done to her and her son [someone in the public gallery whispers “as the victim of course”]. The Prosecutor elaborated that because Hasna A. had gone to IS territory and joined IS that she could also be seen as responsible for the atrocities committed by IS and asked whether Hasna A. saw that too. Hasna A. said that she did not think that because she stayed in the background, she stayed at home and took care of the children. The Prosecutor answered that they did not believe that because she had been in close proximity to slaves, Hasna A. answered that it was only for a short period and she did not see them after that. The Prosecutor continued that without people like Hasna A. IS would never have gotten so big, Hasna A. responded “yeah, I don’t know”. The Prosecutor asked again whether Hasna A. going to Syria had not made IS stronger, Hasna A. answered that she was very weak [laughter in the public gallery] and did not contribute to IS.
Defense’s Questions on Hasna A.’s Personal Circumstances
The Defense Counsel began by asking about the long period that Hasna A. was in Al-Hol and Al-Roj and how she had gotten there. Hasna A. explained that from Baghuz she and her children had been traveling and were very hungry. Hasna A. described that when they arrived at the camp, they were frail and received help from the UN she thought and were asked questions about where they had come from. Hasna A. explained that she thought that they would receive help, but that was only for Syrians, foreigners had to have money. The Defense Counsel asked about what it was like for [redacted name] as severely autistic child in the camp, Hasna A. elaborated on a story about a fire in a tent in the camp and that [redacted name] went into the fire to put it out but had developed severe burns and infections from the burn wounds [alarm went off in public gallery despite phones not being allowed, so large part of this answer was missed]. Hasna A. explained that there were doctors but that they did not have medicine and had to collect money to give the doctors. The Defense Counsel asked if [redacted name] had experienced pain, Hasna A. answered that yeah it took very long for him to recover and needed daily treatment to make it better, he was 12 years old at the time. The Defense Counsel asked if she had problems with his behavior, Hasna A. explained that life was hard for her children then and that she would get into arguments with the other mothers about [redacted name] taking a child’s bike or clothes. Hasna A. explained that among the women in the camp it was easy to point a finger at us because she was thought to not have her kids under control and made life for her hard.
The Presiding Judge then concluded the first day, checking on the time required for the Plaintiffs’ Representation, Prosecution and Defense to speak in the following days and asking for all the submissions to be given on paper as well.
The proceedings were adjourned at 5:09PM
The next trial day will be on October 16, 2024, at 9:30AM.
___________________________
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