Inside the Hasna A. Trial # 2: Plaintiffs’ Right to Speak and Prosecution Office’s Final Submissions

District Court of the Hague – Schiphol Judicial Complex, The Netherlands

Trial Monitoring Summary #2

Hearing Date: October 16, 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.

SJAC’s 2nd trial monitoring report details day 2 of the trial of Hasna A. in the Schiphol Judicial Complex in Badhoevedorp, The Netherlands. On this trial day, the plaintiffs’ right to speak, questions and additional submissions for claims of damages and final submissions and the required sentence by the Prosecutor were discussed.

Day 2 – October 16, 2024

On this trial day, the second day of proceedings began at 10:45AM at the Schiphol Judicial Complex, Badhoevedorp, the Netherlands before the International Crimes Chamber of the District Court of the Hague. The proceedings began later than anticipated due to delay in Hasna A.’s transport to Schiphol Judicial Complex. There were more public spectators than on the first trial day in the gallery located above the courtroom behind glass and the press was present in the courtroom, as on day 1.

Opening of the Second Trial Day

The Presiding Judge opened the proceedings for the day by welcoming Plaintiffs P1, who was present in a separate room within the Court, and P2, who was joining online. The Judge also welcomed the public present in the room and online. The Judge then addressed Hasna A. and told her that she would not need to give answers on this day but had to pay attention to what was being said.

The Presiding Judge then elaborated on the program for the day. The morning would be dedicated to the Plaintiffs’ right to speak and damages claim, which would predominantly be delivered by their counsels, Dr. Barbara van Straaten and Dr. Brechtje Vossenberg, however P1 would also speak briefly following the first trial day and Hasna A.’s comments [P1 speaking was different from what had originally been scheduled]. The afternoon would be reserved for the Prosecution Office’s final submissions and required sentence measures.

Plaintiffs’ Right to Speak: Context of Plaintiffs’ Experiences

Dr. Barbara van Straaten opened the Plaintiffs’ right to speak (Van Straaten commented that she would speak slower for the translator). Van Straaten explained that she would elaborate on the context of the Plaintiffs’ victimization as Yazidi slaves, while her colleague Dr. Brechtje Vossenberg would address the individual stories of P1 and P2.

Van Straaten started by highlighting that in the past summer of 2024 it had been 10 years since IS attacked the Yazidis. Van Straaten elaborated on how men were killed, boys under 12 were taken to join IS as fighters and women and girls were taken deep into the Caliphate to become (sex) slaves. The plaintiffs’ counsel explained that there was an important distinction between a genocide in the legal sense as opposed to in ordinary layperson language. She continued that genocide in its ordinary layperson meaning was an attack against one’s identity, religion, culture and way of life and was not just a crime but different. The plaintiffs’ counsel explained that murder in the context of a genocide generated more than extreme pain created from losing a loved one and a family member as it was also related to the pain of the loss of a whole bloodline and community being destroyed. She explained that the crimes committed are extrapolated in the context of a genocide. The plaintiffs’ counsel elaborated that the meaning of genocide also plays an important role on the individual and specifically both of their clients. She explained that both P1 and P2 were direct victims of the genocide against the Yazidi community as they were part of the Yazidi culture but could not return to their homes. The plaintiffs’ counsel explained that P1 and P2 were both kidnapped from their birth region and brainwashed. She noted that both clients miss their family members.

Van Straaten continued that P1 and P2 had been victims of the Accused’s conduct, that they had to worked for Hasna A. as house slaves. She explained that while the charges against the Accused is for individual crimes against humanity, the clients’ experiences cannot be considered separate from the genocidal attack against the Yazidis. The plaintiffs’ counsel elaborated that crimes of enslavement and rape are perhaps the most memorable crimes of IS. She explained that UN research estimated that 6000 Yazidi girls were kidnapped (with 2700 still missing) of which 80% were made available to IS fighters through online and physical slave markets. The plaintiffs’ counsel highlighted that girls as young as 9 years old were used as sex slaves, and that it was common practice among IS fighters to give house and sex slaves as gifts to each other. She continued that the wives of IS fighters were also a part of the crime, like Hasna A. In the name of her clients, the plaintiffs’ counsel also highlighted that this was a genocide and stated that they awaited explanation from the Prosecution on why genocide was not brought forward as a charge.

Van Straaten then moved on to address that despite genocide not being pursued against the Accused, all constitutive elements of slavery as a crime against humanity could be considered fulfilled. The plaintiffs’ counsel cited German jurisprudence, quoting a judgement in which it was stated that in the case of IS fighter wives, it need not be established that the defendant paid money for the slaves, but rather focus should be on their intent. In the case cited, the defendant was found to have controlled movements, forbade Yazidi religion, forced the slave to care for their children and with the necessary intent. This intent was shown in that they knew of the attack on Yazidis and knew of them being held against their will. The plaintiffs’ counsel posited that in the case against Hasna A. there was no need to prove financial purchasing of the clients, but rather that the clients felt restricted and were forced to work. The plaintiffs’ counsel posited that P1 and P2 confirmed this. She elaborated that P2 had stated that she had begged Hasna A. to help her find her children and that Hasna A. did not do anything. P2 had stated that Hasna A. knew P1 and P2 were being held against their will and that instead of helping them, Hasna A. had actively used and abused them as slaves. Van Straaten posited that their clients had no doubt in the Accused’s contribution to IS slavery practices.

Van Straaten concluded her statement by quoting Nadia Murad’s book “The Last Girl” [Murad was also a Yazidi slave, in which Murad had written that the terrorists had thought that the victims would never be able to escape or leave them and that they would be ashamed to talk about what they had done. But that every time Murad told her story she felt as though she disobeyed them once more and undermined their perspective. Van Straaten highlighted that P1 and P2’s presence was special and that P2 had wanted to be present physically [P2 had trouble acquiring a visa given her asylum status in Australia]. P1 was grateful to be there in person and that she had decided to use her right to speak directly to the Accused, Van Straaten then gave the word to her colleague.

Plaintiffs’ Right to Speak: Personal Experiences of P1 and P2

Dr. Brechtje Vossenberg elaborated that she would address the personal stories of both plaintiffs and the accusations against Hasna A. Vossenberg clarified that the arguments from their clients was that what IS had done was a lifelong sentence and was truly inhumane. The plaintiffs’ counsel explained that P1 and P2 felt the collective pain from the Yazidi persecution and international crimes committed. Vossenberg described her clients as daughters, sisters, mothers and aunts that had survived atrocities. The plaintiffs’ counsel emphasized that this right to speak was not easy for the victims, as it brought them back to the darkest times in their lives Vossenberg stated that she would leave it to the Prosecution to address Hasna A.’s deflection and lack of response to questions on slavery. Vossenberg provided that the manner upon which Hasna A. had presented herself on Monday as a slave, in the same position as P1, P2 and P6 and strongly denied her part in their slavery hurt P1 and P2 both and turned their world upside down, they considered Hasna A.’s statements a lie. Vossenberg emphasized that P2 had said that she “burned inside” when hearing Hasna A.’s statements in Court on Monday.

Vossenberg then proceeded to elaborate on the details of the slavery charge, in which P1, P2 and P6 [a witness and other Yezidi slave] were kidnapped following the IS attack in August 2014 and sold to IS fighters. The plaintiffs’ counsel elaborated that P1, P2, P6 and the first-born daughter of P1 were taken to the “Intifada street” where Abu Ahmad took P1, Abu Abdullah took P2, Abu Waleed took P6 and Abu Annas took P1’s daughter. The plaintiffs’ counsel elaborated that the women were sexually abuse, made powerless, lived in fear, slapped, beaten and called disbelievers and heretics, and that this story was true for thousands of Yazidi women. For both P1 and P2, the counsel emphasized that Hasna A. knew that they were Yazidi women, and that Hasna A. had told them several times that the Yazidis deserved this treatment. The plaintiffs’ counsel posited that the while Hasna A. had not hit them, the threat of violence was a real fear for P1 and P2. The plaintiffs’ counsel addressed that for P1 and P2, Hasna A. had contributed to Abu Ahmad and Abu Abdullah’s gruesome treatment when they were not home and were alone with her.

Vossenberg then addressed P2’s right to speak and individual experience, clarifying that for P2 the most important thing she wanted was justice and for Hasna A. to be held accountable for the crimes committed against her and others. The plaintiffs’ counsel explained that in August 2014, P2 tried to flee with her family but was captured a day after IS’ attack in Iraq. Vossenberg provided that P2 had stated that the men were separated and that she was sold to Abu Abdullah. P2 stated she had tried to escape with a smuggler but was brought back to Abu Abdullah and abused, but that this did not stop her trying until she managed. The counsel elaborated that P2 had 14 family members involved in the IS attack and that 11 were still missing. P2 had stated that she had likely gone through all of the possible things IS could have done and that she held Hasna A. extremely accountable for these traumatic experiences because Hasna A. had participated in it. P2 had stated that in 2016, Hasna A. had stayed in Abu Abdullah house under the agreement that Hasna A. would have authority over P2. Vossenberg continued that P2 had stated that Hasna A. had never cooked, that Hasna A. had often said she was happy about what had happened to the Yazidis and that Yazidis would go to hell. P2 had also stated that Hasna A. saw P2 as her own slave and a slave of IS and that Hasna A. could not see them as humans. The counsel elaborated that P2 could not understand how Hasna A. could not empathize with her and wanted to know why Hasna A. had done what she had done but that P2 also knew she would never get that answer from Hasna A.

P1 then provided her statement in Kurmanji language [with live translation to Dutch] in which she first thanked the Court for making this possible. P1 described that after hearing Hasna A. tell the Court on Monday that Hasna A. could not live without her children, the feelings of all mothers must have been touched. Yet, P1 testified that she struggled to understand how Hasna A. could live with P1 knowing that she had been separated from her own children. P1 described that her heart burned to see Hasna A. with her son [redacted name] and that she could not be with her own. P1 explained that she lost 2 daughters due to Hasna A.’s support. P1 elaborated that people like Hasna A. committed genocide against the Yazidis and that even 10 years later we can’t count the crimes. P1 provided that 5600 Yazidi people had been murdered, are still missing or living in camps to this day. P1 concluded by thanking the Court for allowing her to use her right to speak.

Following P1’s statement, Vossenberg continued with an elaboration on P1’s background and her experience in becoming a slave. P1 had 4 children, 3 daughters and 1 son. Her daughters were all considered old enough to be taken by IS fighters. The counsel highlighted that P1 had stated that Hasna A. knew this and had even met her son and daughter before. P1 stated that Hasna A. could have made a difference and chose not to offer a helping hand at the very least (P1 lost two daughters, the other daughter spent years with IS). P1 had stated, according to her counsel, that Hasna A. was constantly busy on her laptop, phone and the outside world and even when P1 begged her Hasna A. would say always no. The plaintiffs’ counsel continued going through P1’s statement, in which P1 stated that she felt that despite all the crimes (in being forced to take care of Hasna A.’s son, pray, constant fear of being sold or killed), the most hurtful thing from Hasna A. was her lack of empathy towards P1. P1 also stated that she saw Hasna A. as a loyal IS member because Hasna A. had made a conscious decision to travel to the Caliphate despite living in a safe country. P1 stated, according to her counsel, that Hasna A. would only do these things if she approved of the organization and P1 found this incomprehensible. P1 stated that Hasna A. spoke very openly in front of P1 because Hasna A. did not think that P1 would be freed or that she would return to the Netherlands. P1 stated that she had decided to pay attention to the things Hasna A. said to use for justice. The plaintiffs’ counsel explained that P1 had stated that once she was at UNITAD and believed that she had survived the atrocities, P1 chose to speak out against Hasna A. Vossenberg elaborated that for P1 there was no punishment high enough for what she had done, and she wanted to never see her free. The counsel continued that P1 had hoped that Hasna A. might show remorse on Monday and that even though in the end Hasna A. didn’t, P1 hoped that she would take accountability eventually and self-reflection.

Vossenberg concluded in emphasizing the importance of these proceedings for not only the clients but also the broader Yazidi community in seeing guilty persons face justice. Vossenberg explained that this is why their clients had worked with organizations such as UNITAD, Yazda and CIJA. The plaintiffs’ counsel continued that not much has been done in the past 10 years for justice and accountability but that more cases have come up which is an important step forward. Vossenberg concluded that proceedings like these show that times can change, Caliphates can fall, perpetrators can face punishment, countries like the Netherlands cannot be a safe haven.

The Presiding Judge thanked both plaintiffs for their submissions and P1 for coming. The Judge then turned his attention to Hasna A. acknowledging that she had been crying when reading along, and asked Hasna A. what she thought of the statements made. Hasna A. reacted with emotion [crying] and said that she had only heard things that were not true, and while she can feel for the victims, she says that they simply are not true.

[25-minutes-break]  

The Presiding Judge elaborated that the longer break (was originally supposed to be 15 minutes) had been due to connection problems with P2. The Judge then clarified that on the 16^th of September the Plaintiffs had sent a request for damages of €30,000 for P1 and €25,000 for P2 based on an expert report. The Judge asked whether the Plaintiffs wanted to provide any further clarification to which the Plaintiffs’ Counsel reacted that they would be open to questions from the court. The Presiding Judge responded that they had two questions, the first question regarded the amount of compensation requested as it was based on Syrian and Dutch case law on exploitation and the Court wished further clarification on this. The second question pertained to clarification on the Plaintiffs’ explanation of their claims in which there is no medical evidence necessary as an obvious standard violation is enough for claim to be granted. The Plaintiffs’ Counsel responded that given that the Defense were likely to touch on these points in their submission whether they could come back to these questions in the rebuttal on the third day, the Judge said this was fine.

[75-minutes-break]  

Prosecution’s Final Submissions Introduction

Prosecutor Kroon opened the Prosecution’s submissions by reiterating what they had said 1.5 years ago when the case was made public, namely that it was a special day for the Yazidi community. Prosecutor Kroon highlighted that there are only a few cases happening worldwide on these crimes and that these trial days pave an important way for accountability. Yet the Prosecutor acknowledged the Hasna A. on Monday did not take accountability, but rather sees herself as a victim because of her ex-husband, difficult youth and IS, when the real victims are Yazidi women. The Prosecutor also declared that they would focus their submissions on what could be proven, but also understood that the problem was much bigger than this case. The Prosecutor addressed that what happened to Yazidi community was indescribable. IS did not see them as people but as a product and that this case is only grain of sand a desert of 10 years’ worth of crimes. The Prosecutor acknowledged that there are countless people and organizations, such as NGOs gathering evidence, police teams and victim organizations all working together for justice. The Prosecutor also highlighted that while the crimes committed by IS feel long ago given that the Caliphate fell over 5 years ago, for the Yazidi community it is not over as only 2 weeks prior another victim had been liberated from captivity since 2014. The Prosecutor explicitly welcomed the Yazidi community sitting in the public gallery, and said it was important they are here and sends an important message that the victims are not alone. The Prosecutor also declared that the term “victim” is a legal term in the Netherlands and will be used throughout their submissions but acknowledged that the term “survivor” is often favored and don’t want the use of “victim” to take away from this. Prosecutor Kroon also welcomed P1 and P2, acknowledging that the following trial days brought them back to their worst days and that they are strong, however, also stated that they are vulnerable and remain afraid of their safety. The Prosecutor posited that P1 and P2’s safety is crucial to their Office and stressed that their identity must remain anonymous. The Prosecutor said he was happy that the Court and media have worked hard to protect the safety of the victims.

Prosecution’s Final Submissions: Participation in a Terrorist Organization Charge

Prosecutor Kroon addressed that while much focus has been placed on the slavery charge, Hasna A. participation in IS remained important as IS is still active and regrouping in several locations including Israel and Gaza. The Prosecutor posited that he would first discuss the investigation and crimes pertaining to the terrorism charges, followed by the second Prosecutor addressing the slavery indictment and required sentence.

The Prosecutor explained that on February 25, 2015 Hasna A.’s father declared Hasna A. and her son missing and a criminal investigation was opened under the case name 26Banning by the National Prosecution Office. On October 24, 2016, the Prosecution Office issued an arrest warrant for Hasna A. The Prosecutor explained that UNITAD had provided information and evidence regarding P1, P2 and P6 to the Prosecution Office in which there was suspicion that Hasna A. had committed slavery as a crime against humanity. On November 2, 2022, Hasna A. returned to the Netherlands with 11 other Dutch women and Hasna A. was arrested upon arrival [read news article here].

Prosecution’s Final Submissions: Context of Crime

Prosecutor Kroon then elaborated on the terrorist crimes, referring to the second, third and fourth charges of the indictment [see Trial Report 1 for the indictment by the Prosecution], and began by providing context on the establishment of IS and the Caliphate. The Prosecutor explained that the Arab Spring in 2010 led to civil uprising within Syria in 2011 under the Assad regime, with drastic human rights violations. The Prosecutor elaborated that Syria in the civil war also became vulnerable to terrorist organizations such as IS who were operating in the territory of Iraq and Syria. The Prosecutor elaborated that IS began looking for members to suppress the territory further and began looking for foreign like-minded people to become members. The Prosecutor said that this led to men and women making the biggest mistakes of their lives to travel to the war zone with the hope that it would be a paradise, just like the Accused. On June 29, 2014, the Caliphate was established in Syria and Iraq, the territory was about as big as the United Kingdom. The Prosecutor explained that then IS began committing horrendous crimes such as beheadings, which everyone had thought only happened in the Middle Ages. In the beginning of 2019, the Caliphate fell with most IS members dead, in camps or imprisoned, the Prosecutor posited that Hasna A. was part of a small group that traveled out of the territory to the Netherlands.

Prosecution’s Final Submissions: Jurisdiction and Legal Framework of Crime

Prosecutor Kroon then addressed jurisdiction and the legal framework for the charges against the Accused. Regarding the establishment of jurisdiction, the Prosecutor posited that article 4 of the Wetboek van Strafrecht (Dutch Penal Code) and jurisprudence made extraterritorial jurisdiction possible for the second, third and fourth charges against Hasna A. Subsequently, the Prosecutor addressed the legal framework relevant to charges against Hasna A. For the second charge, the Prosecutor posited that Article 140a of Dutch Penal Code relating to crimes against public order was the main legal basis (Article 140a as participation in an organization aimed at committing terrorist offences). Terrorist crimes were defined by the Prosecutor under article 83a as crimes with the intent to cause serious fear to the population or part of the population of a country, to unlawfully compel a government or international organization to do, or not do or tolerate something, or to seriously disrupt or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structure of a country or an international organization. The Prosecutor provided that jurisprudence established IS as an organization aimed at committed terrorist crimes and that participation in a terrorist organization can be established from membership to the terrorist organization.

The Prosecutor highlighted that in the case of IS, foreigners who traveled to the Caliphate did so on the request by IS to strengthen the organization and can thus be considered participation. In the case of women, marriage with an IS fighter could also be considered participation according to the Prosecutor. For the third charge of commission of preparatory acts with terrorist intent, the Prosecutor relied on articles 83a, 96(2) and 48 of the Dutch Penal Code. Article 96(2) pertained to commission with the intent to prepare or promote crimes with terrorist intent (as defined under article 83a) and is considered a form of co-perpetration. The Prosecutor elaborated that article 48 pertained to co-perpetration in which one intentionally provides the opportunity, means or information to commit crimes (in this case crimes with terrorist intent defined in article 83a). The Prosecutor emphasized that for this charge it was only required to prove that Hasna A. had assisted IS in any of their crimes and had the intention to do so and does not necessarily matter what the crime is as long as her contribution had a causal link to its “effective” commission. The Prosecutor thus posited that sharing a household with an IS fighter can be considered a form of assistance to terrorist crimes given that Hasna A. took care of her husband in making him food and doing household tasks which had a causal link in his subsequent commission of terrorist crimes as an IS fighter. [With regards the fourth charge of the endangerment of her underage son, it is likely that article 255 of the Dutch Penal Code was relied upon].

The Prosecutor then elaborated on the position of women in IS and clarified that the narrative that out-bound travelers were victims was not well-founded. IS posited that women take an important position within the organization in doing household tasks, taking care of the children and caring for the men. The Prosecutor further elaborated that women also played active roles as doctors, teachers, created propaganda (to encourage other women to join) and even as part of the Hisbah [Islamic Police] (in the Al-Khansaa Brigade) and battalions such as Katiba Nusaybah within the Caliphate. The Prosecutor thus posited that the notion that women in IS were mere housewives also required more nuance. He addressed that foreign women were granted even more rights and privileges (such as health care) and were considered essential and indispensable by IS, and that the Prosecution agreed.

Prosecution’s Final Submissions: Evidence and Application of Law to Specific Charges

Prosecutor Kroon then provided extensive evidence pertaining to Hasna A.’s social environment in 2014 and her radicalization process in the months before her departure to Syria. The Prosecutor cited a statement made by a colleague from her traineeship location in which the witness stated that Hasna A. had spoken continuously about IS, that she thought what IS was doing was good and that if IS beheaded her son It would send him to Paradise. The Prosecutor acknowledged that another witness stated that they had seen her Facebook profile picture with an IS flag and AK47s and went to the police to report it. The witnesses had according to the Prosecutor stated that Hasna A. in December 2014 suddenly began to wear Islamic clothing, was having financial problems, and that Hasna A. had spoken of friends who had traveled to IS and wanted to join them. The Prosecutor referred to the statement from Hasna A.’s student advisor that recalled her speaking differently to other students, that Hasna A. had expressed that she thought what was happening in Syria was a good thing and that Hasna A. watched videos of beheadings. The Prosecutor referred to Hasna A.’s father’s statement in which he had gone by and suddenly found Hasna A. wearing long dresses.

The Prosecutor posited that in their view Hasna A. had gotten instruction on how to get to Syria to marry an IS fighter. The Prosecutor elaborated that on February 12, 2015, she used a scam travel organization to travel to Antalya and texted her mother on February 16, 2015, that she had left the Netherlands to Syria. On the March 3, 2015, she sent a message to her sister, P7, that she was in a Madafa with her son [redacted name]. On March 10, 2015, Hasna A. sent a message in the WhatsApp group chat of her traineeship location saying that she had emigrated to Syria and would never come back. In messages to her cousin, Hasna A. said that she spent 3 months in the Madafa prior to marrying Abu Zubeir.

The Prosecutor then went through evidence pertaining to her husband, addressing that Hasna A. had testified on Monday that she did not want to say his full name, that he would leave a lot and owned a weapon. According to the Prosecutor, P7 had stated that Hasna A. was married to an IS fighter which was also confirmed by P1 and P6. P1’s statement elaborated that Hasna A. owned more than one weapon and was part of a fighter group in the IS administration. The Prosecutor continued that Hasna A. had 3 children with Abu Zubeir, 2 girls [redacted names] and 1 boy [redacted name], and lived predominantly in Syria but also traveled to Iraq. The Prosecutor established her timeline of movements (through her WhatsApp messages) as Hasna A. was certainly in Iraq September 3, 2015, and was definitely back in Syria on December 15, 2016 but when exactly Hasna A. had returned from Iraq to Syria remained unknown. The Prosecutor continued that then she remained in Raqqa, with a short stay in Tabqa and then Mayadeen (Abu Zubeir joined her to Mayadeen), and that by the end of 2016/beginning 2017 Hasna A. wanted a divorce. According to the Prosecutor, her divorce was only finalized in 2018 as Hasna A. feared that she might lose her children. After her divorce she remained in IS, registered at the administration and received assistance from the organization.

The Prosecutor elaborated that Hasna A. had requested her family to join her In Syria several times as indicated in WhatsApp messages to her father and aunt asking them to come. The Prosecutor quoted one of the messages Hasna A. sent on December 15, 2016, in which she sent “please come to Paradise, hear Allah and come, don’t be misled”. The Prosecutor also highlighted photos of her children wearing a scarf with an IS logo and raised index fingers. The Prosecutor cited several other messages, such as to her father saying, “there are bombs, pray for us and the muhajadeen, inshallah we have become martyrs.” Hasna A. also messaged her father that she had heard that “the dogs are now banning women who wear niqab/burka” [this is likely referring to Dutch political policies] and “so you see daddy how these dirty kuffar treat us Muslims, when are you coming this way [...] Fear Allah papa this world is nothing.” The Prosecutor continued that Hasna A. had left IS territory in the beginning of 2019, her benefits from IS stopped at the end of February 2019 when the Caliphate fell. The Syrian Democratic Forces have Hasna A. noted down as one of the women who surrendered as an IS woman. Hasna A. then went to camps in Al Roj and Al Hol and was repatriated in 2022 to the Netherlands.

The Prosecutor elaborated that the aforementioned evidence enabled several conclusions. First that to Hasna A. IS was in her mind before she left for Syria due to her radicalization. The Prosecutor described her radicalization as while Hasna A. was more than welcome to choose what she believed in; she had chosen to be an extremist who believed that violence against other people was legitimate and had ultimately acted accordingly. The Prosecutor posited that Hasna A. knew about the IS Caliphate and of their atrocious crimes, that she had even said herself that she had “searched things up on the internet”. The Prosecutor elaborated that she had planned to go to Syria to marry an IS fighter and any argument otherwise was a cover.

The Prosecutor argued that the attack in August 2014 against the Yazidis was very prominent in the media and that the testimony by Hasna A. that she did not know anything about it was not believable. The Prosecutor also cited the extensive media coverage surrounding the decapitation of the American journalist James Foley and the video published on February 3, 2015, of a Jordanian pilot being burned alive by IS (the Prosecutor addressed that 10 days later Hasna A. traveled to Syria). He posited that given when Hasna A. traveled to Syria any arguments of her naivety were not believable, he said that anyone who went to Syria at that time, knew “damn well” what they were joining. The Prosecutor continued that Hasna A.’s testimony that she thought the Caliphate would be peaceful, and wanted to live there as a woman alone was also not believable, he said that she had wanted to marry an IS fighter. The Prosecutor elaborated that he thought it was a shame that Hasna A. had described herself as a vulnerable and influenceable woman and yet had chosen to take no accountability. The Prosecutor said that if she had taken such accountability, there would have been room for a conversation, but given that she had chosen to lie she made herself more accountable. The Prosecutor concluded that Hasna A. had intentionally participated and been a member of IS through marriage with an IS fighter and doing household tasks for him, he also provided her membership to IS remained after her divorce due to her registration in the IS administration.

The Prosecutor continued that her claim that WhatsApp messages were sent by her husband as not believable given that the message sent with the photo of her children had been written in Dutch. He also pointed out that according to P2 in her statement that Hasna A. had taken the photo’s herself and boasted about them being in the Dutch newspaper. The Prosecutor also addressed that Hasna A. had called for her family to join IS, he argued that even though this did not reach the threshold necessary for propaganda [glorification of IS must be proved], it showed Hasna A. approved of IS and its control of territory. The Prosecutor posited that only hard-core supporters of IS would remain until the very end of the territory, which Hasna A. had done without any attempts to escape or flee. The Prosecutor also mentioned that her carrying of a weapon, marrying an IS fighter and doing household tasks could all be considered forms of preparation and promotion to terrorist crimes. Hasna A. also knew of the crimes and wanted to participate based on her actions, according to the Prosecutor.

The Prosecutor also addressed that Hasna A. bringing her already vulnerable [due to his severe autism and age] son to Syria only endangered him further. The Prosecutor argued that Hasna A.’s lack of research or attempts to escape indicated her commission of endangerment.

Prosecutor Kroon concluded with specifying the timeline of each crime, the second charge of participation in a terrorist organization began with her arrival in Syria and the Caliphate from February 16, 2015, until when she was in the camp on March 1, 2019. The third charge of preparation and promotion of terrorist crimes was considered by the Prosecution to have begun November 1, 2014, when she began her radicalization process and ended on March 1, 2019, once she was in the camps. The fourth charge of endangerment of Hasna A.’s four-year-old son began when she left the Netherlands with him on February 16, 2015, and ended when Hasna A. arrived in camps in March 2019 as she no longer was involved in the violence occurring.

Prosecution’s Final Submissions: Slavery as a Crime Against Humanity Charge

Prosecutor Blom then began addressing slavery as an international crime against humanity and Hasna A.’s commission against P1 and P2. The Prosecutor posited that she would first provide context, then address the relevant legal framework and evidence followed by its application to prove Hasna A.’s commission of the crime. The Prosecutor also declared that in her submission she used the words “property” and “slave” and recognized that they were heavy terms for Yazidis but would have to be used as the law relied on it.

Prosecution’s Final Submissions: Context of Crime

Prosecutor Blom posited that the context of this crime must address the attack of 2014 and Yazidi persecution. She defined Yazidi as an ethnic religious group which originated from Kurdistan region of North Iraq, Turkey and Syria. The Prosecutor addressed that the Yazidis had experienced discrimination for centuries, often being called non-believers and devil worshippers (like IS did). The Prosecutor then elaborated on details of the attacks of August 2014 by IS [most of these details were derived from a UN report on by the Human Rights Council on ISIS Crimes Against Yazidis from June 2016, which can be found here]. She stated that on August 3, 2014 in Sinjar, Iraq, IS committed an organized and professional attack. The IS bases that led the attack with thousands of fighters were in Mosul in Iraq and Tel Azaz in Syria. The Prosecutor asserted that 10,000 Yazidis fled, some Yazidi men bravely fought and assisted in escapes from Sinjar into the mountains. The displaced Yazidi people in the mountains faced a humanitarian crisis in 50°C temperatures, many people died from the conditions in the mountains. IS eventually took over as the Yazidis were brought to Mosul, Tiper and Farsh where men and women were separated. The Prosecutor provided that age and gender were important characteristics of separation and relied on examination of boys’ armpit hair and weight to decide their age. The boys selected were forced to ideologically indoctrinate and were trained to become soldiers. Boys and men who did not conform were executed through shots in the head and throat.

According to the Prosecutor, women who were imprisoned either witnessed or heard the killings. Women and children were transported to different locations and were also separated prior to imprisonment. Children under the age of 8 years old were kept with their mother while women were separated based upon being married or unmarried. Prior to being sold as slaves, women and children were exposed to horrible conditions, with no food, water or medicine. The Prosecutor explained that imprisoned women and children were seen as possessions or “Sabaya” and made available to IS fighters to sexually abuse and thought it was a religious plight under Sharia law to enslave them. The Prosecutor elaborated that personal information of the Yazidi women and girls was registered and were “valued” prior to being sold at slave markets, also sex markets. The Prosecutor posited that 80% of Yazidi women were sold to individuals such as to IS fighters to own, and 20% were kept for the organization. When sold to individuals, it was not uncommon for an IS fighter to buy several slaves at once to resell outside IS territory. The Prosecutor stated that the markets were typically in military places such as Hasaka, Aleppo and Raqqa (but could also take place online) and were organized by a committee. The prices ranged from 200 to 1500 USD depending on the status, appearance, age, number of children, civil status (i.e. whether they were a virgin or not). The Prosecutor elaborated that following the sale, Yazidi women were used as household slaves within an entire village, apartment block or for several households. The Prosecutor described that the Yazidi women were physically and psychologically held captive and could not escape. The Prosecutor elaborated on examples where attempts to escape led to rape, killing of their children in front of them, collective punishment and beatings. The Prosecutor explained that there had been occurrences where mothers who cried when their children had been killed would be raped and that suicide attempts were punished with gang rape or torture using an electric wire.

Prosecutor Blom also provided some context on the role of IS women in the commission of slavery against Yazidi women. She posited that many Yazidis were raped, abused and forced to work (to do household tasks or required to care for children) and that IS women forced them to do this work. The Prosecutor stated that given that IS women were responsible for the household tasks, the ownership of a household Yazidi slave made IS women responsible for their slavery as well. The Prosecutor elaborated on evidence that children of Yazidi slaves were also used to do chores and were punished if their mother did not comply with instructions. The Prosecutor also addressed that IS women were sometimes also involved in the sale of Yazidis.

Prosecution’s Final Submissions: Jurisdiction and Legal Framework of Crime

Prosecutor Blom then addressed jurisdiction and the legal framework for the charges against the Accused. Jurisdiction could be established according to the Prosecutor on the basis of Article 2(1)(c) of the Wet International Misdrijven (International Crimes Law), in which a Dutch person can be tried for one of the international crimes [slavery as a crime against humanity is one of them] when committed outside the Netherlands. The Prosecutor then addressed that the legal basis of slavery as a crime against humanity could be found in Article 4(1)(c) of the Wet International Misdrijven. Slavery was defined under Article 4(2)(b) as the exercise on a person of any or all of the powers associated with the right of property, including the exercise of such power in human trafficking, especially trafficking in women and children. The Prosecutor made a distinction between traditional slavery and modern slavery, with the former being characteristic of ownership and slave markets and the latter being associated with the powers attached to the right of ownership. The Prosecutor addressed Article 7(1)(c) of the Rome Statute and its Elements of Crimes of slavery prior to elaboration on the contextual elements of a crime against humanity.

The elements of slavery are as followed: (1) any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over one or more persons, such as by purchasing, selling, lending or bartering such a person or persons, or by imposing on them a similar deprivation of liberty; (2) the conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population; (3) The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. The Prosecutor argued that most forms of ownership in the first element of crime were characteristic of traditional slavery, but that the last form of “imposing on them a similar deprivation of liberty” could be applied to modern slavery. The Prosecutor posited that a transaction is not required for slavery to occur and that modern forms such as human trafficking, forced labor and servitude also could apply derived from footnote 11 from the Elements of Crimes.

The Prosecutor then cited the ICC Ongwen case which provided 10 indicia pertaining to the exercise of powers attaching to the rights of ownership. These indicia are as followed: (i) control or restrictions of someone’s movement and, more generally, measures taken to prevent or deter escape; (ii) control of physical environment; (iii) psychological control or pressure; (iv) force, threat of force or coercion; (v) duration of the exercise of powers attaching to the right of ownership; (vi) assertion of exclusivity; (vii) subjection to cruel treatment and abuse; (viii) control of sexuality; (ix) forced labor or subjecting the person to servile status; and (x) the person’s vulnerability and the socio-economic conditions in which the power is exerted [The ICC Ongwen Judgement can be found here, this specific reference is in paragraph 2712]. The Prosecutor explained that these indicia were not cumulative, and that slavery and ownership could also be understood non-traditionally. The Prosecutor cited the ICC Katanga Judgement in which it was stated that slavery occurs when a person is regarded as property and does not require a commercial transaction [The ICC Katanga Judgement can be found here, this specific reference is in paragraph 976]. The Prosecutor argued that this indicated that someone who is not the owner of a slave can also commit the act of slavery through regard of someone as a slave. The ICC Ntaganda Judgement also elaborated on factors that may be considered in the exercise of power of ownership: control of the victim’s movement, the nature of the physical environment, psychological control, measures taken to prevent or deter escape, use of force or threats of use of force or other forms of physical or mental coercion, duration, assertion of exclusivity, subjection to cruel treatment and abuse, control of sexuality, forced labor, and the victim’s vulnerability [The ICC Ntaganda Judgement can be found can be found here, this specific reference is in paragraph 952].

The Prosecutor then elaborated on two of the factors addressed in Ongwen, that she deemed relevant to the case. The Prosecutor first addressed control or restriction of someone’s movement, and more generally, measures taken to prevent or deter escape. The Prosecutor highlighted the ICTY Kunarac Judgement in which the Chamber adjudicated that indications of enslavement include elements of control and ownership such as the restriction or control of an individual’s autonomy, freedom of choice or freedom of movement [The ICTY Kunarac judgement can be found here, this specific reference is in paragraph 542].

The Prosecutor made specific reference to the fact that the slaves in this case had keys to the house but that the psychological threats of escape illustrated control as posited in Ongwen. The Prosecutor also cited the UN Special Rapporteur which had confirmed this argument too. The second factor from Ongwen the Prosecutor highlighted was forced labor or subjecting the person to servile status in which forced marriage and forced work could be considered in this form of ownership. The Prosecutor cited the ICTY Kunarac Judgement in which it was considered whether the slave had a choice in working or not as the deciding factor in this form of ownership [can be found in paragraph 542 of the ICTY Kunarac Judgement]. The Prosecutor also posited that abuse was not required and that an absence of will or consent was not a requirement either. The Prosecutor established that slavery can occur in scenarios where slaves are well dressed and taken care of, what is salient is the loss of one’s autonomy and not being able to change the situation they are in.

The Prosecutor then continued to establish the contextual elements of a crime against humanity, which consisted of four elements found in Article 4 of the Wet Internationale Misdrijven. First, the presence of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population. The Prosecutor posited that an attack does not have to be physical or involving with weapons as decided in the Dutch Vescher case but rather consists of the repeated commission of acts by the organization/state (not the perpetrator) [The Vescher Judgement by the Rechtbank in Den Haag can be found here, this specific reference is in section 6.4.1.16]. The Prosecutor posited that the attack must follow a common policy, which does not necessarily have strict requirements but excludes random acts of violence. Furthermore, the Prosecutor posited that the goal/target of the attack must be the civilian population. Second, the nexus requirements requires that the conduct of the Accused must be related to the widespread and systematic attack. The Prosecutor posited that the Accused must have known of the context of the attack, but did not necessarily commit the act because of the attack. Third, commission against a civilian population can occur when it is against the organizations’/State’s own population or others. The Prosecutor clarified that the civilian must be part of the targeted groups of the attack, but that solely prisoner of war and soldier targets would not apply for a crime against humanity [this is considered in war crimes and international humanitarian law]. The Prosecutor cited the Dutch case against Vescher in which it was not required that an entire population was targeted but rather a large portion for it to be considered widespread. The Prosecutor posited that a widespread attack is assessed based on the scale of the attack, with many victims; whereas systematic attack can be found in patterns between various acts that could exclude random attacks. Fourth, the Prosecutor posited that the knowledge elements require that the Accused knew of the context of the attack, it was thus not necessary for the Accused to have condoned the attack.

Prosecutor Blom thus clarified that for the case of Hasna A., she would show that forced labor and restriction of autonomy/control through restrictions to movement were forms of slavery relevant for P1 and P2. She also stated that evidence would also be given to show that Hasna A. knew that her act was part of the widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population.

[20-minute-break]  

Prosecution’s Final Submissions: Evidence and Application of Law to Specific Charges

Prosecutor Blom went through the evidence and considerations made in the prosecution of Hasna A. for the slavery charge. The Prosecutor first posited that the acts of the Accused must be part of a systematic and widespread attack, which in the case of the Yazidis was according to the Prosecutor established. The Prosecutor clarified that open-source evidence [the Prosecutor’s evidence was predominantly derived from the aforementioned UN Human Right Council’s report from June 2016] indicated that Yazidi men were killed, while women were made to be slaves, and hunted down all according to IS’ planning. She described that IS had set up a work process regarding the separation of Yazidis based on gender and age and organized transport of imprisoned women to become slaves. The Prosecutor elaborated that the work process of IS in the attack against the Yazidis was considered justified from passages in the Quran which stated that having a slave is possible. IS also published manuals and guidelines on the treatment and the slave market. The Prosecutor elaborated that within IS and Islamic law a Sabaya was considered part of the organization, and normalized slavery in daily life. The Prosecutor highlighted the UN report on Yazidis from June 2016 [almost all evidence from the Yazidi persecution was derived from this report, can be found here] which provided evidence that 80% of slaves were made available for individual sales to IS fighters. Within the report it was also stated that IS women not only knew of the practice of slavery but also used Yazidi slaves in their home and forced them to work.

The Prosecutor clarified that the Plaintiffs’ statements confirmed these elements of the attack against the Yazidis too. P2 had stated at UNITAD that she had heard on TV that IS attacked Yazidis in order to take women and girls and kill men. P2 had also stated that she had heard on TV that Daesh sold slaves and that her father-in-law had escaped from a mass execution. P6 had stated at UNITAD that an Egyptian guard had told her that he had bought Yazidi slaves. P6 also stated that she was bought for Abu Waleed as a gift to him. P1 also stated that she was bought by Abu Ahmad, and that P2 was bought by Abu Abdullah. Following this the Prosecutor established that the statements and UN report proved that attack with multiple acts against civilians by an organization (in this case a terrorist organization) that was able to plan and execute their plans. The Prosecutor continued that the organization, IS, had relied on a work process that was justified by their radical interpretation of Islam and considered Yazidis “unbelievers”. The Prosecutor argued that the attack was systematic given that the attack in Sinjar and later acts in Syria were planned and not isolated incidents and was widespread due to the high number of victims from Sinjar and surrounding villages that were targeted. The Prosecutor posited that this was also in line with German jurisprudence from the Court in Frankfurt (recognizing it as a court that has adjudicated on many cases of participation in a terrorist organization and slavery as a crime against humanity) in which cases had also considered the attacks against the Yazidis to be widespread (i.e. number of IS attackers, large number of victims, 300,000 Yazidi people) and systematic (i.e. planned, consistent in actions, means used with fighters, buses and weapons, sales of slavery and the role of IS women) for similar considerations. The Prosecutor also argued that these considerations were in line with international criminal law.

 Prosecution’s Final Submissions: Evidence and Slavery Charge P1

The Prosecutor then addressed the individual facts and evidence pertaining to each Plaintiff to then address the other required elements of the crime (i.e. nexus to attack, Accused’s knowledge of attack and her conduct that aided and abetted the attack). For P1, the Prosecutor posited that Hasna A. had from May 1, 2015 (exact dates will be elaborated later) aided and abetted in slavery as a crime against humanity through forcing her to work in their household, make food and care for her son. P1 had stated that she was enslaved by Abu Ahmad and that a Dutch person had come to live with them for a time with her son, [redacted name] when Abu Zubeir was in Iraq. P1 had stated that she was forced to household tasks, Hasna A. was not very nice to her, forced her to pray, wash her clothes and take care of her son. P1 stated that Hasna A. had not hit her but that for 12 hours in a day she would work. According to the Prosecutor, P1 stated that it felt as though she was dead and always feared being beaten, sold or killed. P1 had elaborated in her statement that even if she did Muslim things, like reading the Quran she would still get mistreated. P1 had also stated that [redacted name] had issues and that she had to take care of him. P1 also provided in her statement that she had cleaned Hasna A. and Abu Zubeir’s house before they had gotten married and that when they had moved to a larger house she would help them a lot. P1 stated that Hasna A. had been in Abu Ahmad’s house at least 10 times (once of which was for 1 month and the others for shorter periods) and had to do everything for her when they were in the house. P1 also stated that [redacted name] was troublemaker who one time had thrown eggs and P1 had to clean it all up. According to the Prosecutor, P1 had stated that Abu Ahmad was not home from 6AM to 6PM and that Hasna A. in that time would shower, rest and sit on her phone or laptop during the day. P1 stated that Hasna A. would not allow her to use her phone to call her family when she asked. According to P1’s statement, Hasna A. would tell P1 that she was a Sabaya and had to do everything in the house because she had been purchased. P1 had also stated that she had to go every other day to Hasna A.’s house to clean their house and never got compensation for her work. P1’s statement indicated that Hasna A. knew of P1’s children and had met her son and one of her daughters. P1 stated that Hasna A. knew that P1’s son was in a training camp and that Hasna A. had said that she had wanted to send [redacted name] to a training camp but that he was mentally ill and thus not able to. P1 had stated that she did not have keys and would get locked in (this later changed according to P1 because they knew she would never leave without her son); Hasna A. had the keys so could leave whenever she wanted, P1 was only able to go with Hasna A. The Prosecutor highlighted that in the ICTY Kunurac case it was concluded that even if a slave had the key, it could still be considered enslavement given that could not realistically leave because P1 would not leave without her son. P1 stated that if she did not listen Hasna A. would get angry and would call her a Sabaya and tell her that they had bought P1 to work for them. P1 had stated that she feared Hasna A., that she had mistreated her and that her son [redacted name] was difficult. P1 had also stated Hasna A. could have helped her because she was often alone with her and had begged her to use her phone but always said no, P1 said Hasna A. used her as a slave. The Prosecutor posited that P1 following the ICC Ongwen Judgement that she had experienced forced labor and restrictions of movement and that non-realistic freedoms of movement applied given that P1 could not flee without her son and that Hasna A. knew this.

The Prosecutor then addressed P2 and P6’s corroborating statements at UNITAD in which it was confirmed by both women that P1 was forced to cook and clean by Hasna A. and that Hasna A. was married to Abu Zubeir and stayed at P1’s house.

The Prosecutor addressed Hasna A.’s statement at the Dutch Court Commissioner that Hasna A. had stayed in P1’s house but that she had kept distance from P1 and knew nothing about the Yazidis. Similarly, the Prosecutor addressed Hasna A.’s testimony from the first trial day [See Trial Report 1] in which the Prosecutor argued Hasna A. had restricted her association to P1 even more, through saying that she had a “hunch” about P1 being a Yazidi slave instead of knowing as Hasna A. had stated at the Dutch Court Commissioner. The Prosecutor said that they found her statements completely unbelievable. According to the Prosecutor, P1 had stated that Hasna A. spoke Arabic and that she knew the language because she spoke it with Abu Zubeir. The Prosecutor added that Hasna A. must have been able to understand her husband given that Hasna A. had also testified on Monday that her husband had given her instructions about staying in Abu Ahmad’s house. The Prosecutor also posited that they found Hasna A.’s statements regarding the Friday night dinners as the victim and that Hasna A. did all the cooking while P1, P2 and P6 were seated not believable, especially given that Hasna A. knew that they were Yazidi slaves.

The Prosecutor then briefly explained the time period and location of the charges May 1, 2015 to  November 1, 2015 and in Raqqa, Syria [the date was moved to November 1, 2015 following the Monday proceedings, see Trial Report 1]. Hasna A. had according to the Prosecutor in May 2015 forced P1 to clean her own house and stayed in Abu Ahmad’s house with P1 in June 2015. The Prosecutor posited that in the winter of 2015, P1 was rescued in Aleppo with her son and that Hasna A. had last stayed with her in October 2015. The Prosecutor also addressed Hasna A.’s testimony on Monday in which she was unable to create an exact timeline of when she was in Iraq in this period [See Trial Report 1].

The Prosecutor then addressed the nexus of Hasna A.’s conduct and the widespread and systematic attack. The Prosecutor argued that it had been proven that Hasna A. was guilty of slavery. She elaborated that since it did not need to be shown that Hasna A. herself was part of the overall attack, the nexus could be established on the basis that slavery was an act committed in the context of a widespread and systematic attack by IS and Hasna A. had committed slavery. The Prosecutor then addressed the mental elements of Hasna A. knowing of the widespread and systematic attack. The Prosecutor relied on the evidence from P1 and P2 statements at the Dutch Court Commissioner in which both had stated that Hasna A. called them nonbelievers, approved of IS, was happy about the mistreatment of Yazidis, that she loved IS and would enthusiastically react to IS videos of beheadings. The statements of P1 and P2 also indicated that when shown their bruises and rape that Hasna A. would say it didn’t matter, would shake her head and walk away. P2 had stated that Hasna A. was very negative, calling her unbelieving heretics and that P2 had to become Muslim and bear children. Both P1 and P2’s statements indicated that Hasna A. knew of the enslavement of Yazidis, that they were Yazidis and what they had been through in the attack. The Prosecutor concluded P1’s enslavement charge through addressing Hasna A.’s explicit aiding and abetting as mode of liability. P1 had stated, according to the Prosecutor, that while Abu Ahmad was her owner, but that Hasna A. had aided and abetted him when she alone with P1 all day and made her clean the house. The Prosecutor importantly addressed that Hasna A. did not need to have played a role in how P1 became a slave, and that use of P1 as a slave was enough to be considered aiding and abetting.

Prosecution’s Final Submissions: Evidence and Slavery Charge P2

Prosecutor Blom then addressed Hasna A.’s charge of aiding and abetting slavery as a crime against humanity against P2. The Prosecutor provided evidence from P2’s statement at UNITAD where P2 stated that Hasna A. lived close to P2 following the bombing on Hasna A. and Abu Zubeir’s house and made P2 do cleaning work and force labor in their new house. P2’s statement at UNITAD on the September 19, 2021 indicated that Hasna A. lived briefly with Abu Abdullah and P2 following the bombing on their house and then moved to a house close by. P2 stated that Hasna A. had given her instructions to clean, cook and pray; that Hasna A. had her own room in their house and stayed there with her son, [redacted name] and her daughter, [redacted name]. P2 stated that she did not have to take care of the children but had to prepare all food and cleaning. P2 stated that Hasna A. did not receive any money for her work and then if P2 refused to work she would get beaten. P2 had also stated that when she had once tried to escape, she was threatened with death and beheading by Abu Abdullah.

The Prosecutor addressed that P2 could not remember everything that she had said at UNITAD (P2 had stated at UNITAD that Hasna A. had not given her instructions) but that at the Dutch Court Commissioner P2 stated that Hasna A. had definitely given her instructions in Abu Abdullah’s home. P2 had also stated that she gets treatment for her memory loss and could since remember that she had gotten instructions from Hasna A. The Prosecutor posited that they believed P2 told the truth and argued that research on IS and P1’s statement also corroborated what P2 had said with the Dutch Court Commissioner. The Prosecutor addressed that P1 and P2 had not interacted or had contact with each other since their time in Syria and thus had not influenced each other. The Prosecutor thus posited that P2’s statement was clear, concrete and believable (as Hasna A. had also corroborated several facts on both P1 and P2’s presence in Syria).

The Prosecutor highlighted from the ICC Ongwen Judgement that the factors of forced labor and psychology restriction of movements (derived from the threats of beheadings if P2 attempted escape) were present in P2’s slavery. The Prosecutor posited that when evidence for crimes is based on witness statements, there is a requirement for this evidence to be “schakelbewijs” or switch evidence [at this point it is noted that Hasna A. has closed the pages of the Prosecution’s submission, is sitting leaned back in her chair and is looking around the room uninterested]. The Prosecutor elaborated that switch evidence requires two statements to have recognizable and similar patterns relating to the context and circumstances of the crime [see Trial Report 3 for further explanation on switch evidence]. The Prosecutor posited that Hasna A.’s acts described by both P1 and P2 were recognizable and similar. The Prosecutor addressed that both P1 and P2 had stated independent from each other that Hasna A. did nothing, was on her phone a lot, did not do household tasks and forced them to pray; which thus made Hasna A.’s testimony that she did not have access to her phone unbelievable. Both P1 and P2 had also stated that Hasna A. had called them unbelievers and that they should go to hell, that both of them saw her during the day in their house when the men were away (which is contrary to Hasna A.’s statement that she was always in her room). The Prosecutor posited that there were notable similarities between P1 and P2’s statements were corroboratory, and that Hasna A. had used the same modus operandi on both women.

The Prosecutor concluded addressing that the widespread and systematic attack, nexus and knowledge of Hasna A. could be applied in the same way as with P1. In relation to Hasna A.’s aiding and abetting of the crime, the Prosecutor highlighted P2’s statement that she was Abu Abdullah’s slave but that in practice she was Hasna A.’s slave given that she was often alone with Hasna A. and had to cook and clean for her. The Prosecutor stated that there was no requirement for Hasna A. to have been involved in Abu Abdullah’s purchase of P2, only that she had sustained the persistence of P2’s enslavement. The Prosecutor concluded that the time period for P2’s enslavement was from May 1, 2016 to August 1, 2016 in Raqqa, Syria.

The Prosecution, prior to addressing their request for sentence for Hasna A., stated that the damages of €30,000 for P1 and €25,000 for P2 were based on an expert report about Syrian law and highlighted the possibility for immaterial damages in Syria. The Prosecutor addressed that forced labor in Syrian law is not an international crime but a common crime, but that slavery as an international crime with severe immaterial damages associated (the Prosecutor highlighted that both P1 and P2 had gone to doctors for trauma treatment) The Prosecutor also addressed how the Dutch MH17 case had relied on Ukrainian law in the damages requested and argued thus that there was substantiation to such a claim in Dutch jurisprudence. The Prosecutor thus posited that they agreed with the Plaintiffs’ Counsels and asked the Court to grant them the requested damages.

Prosecution’s Request for Sentencing

Prosecutor Blom concluded the Prosecution’s submissions with their request for sentencing. The Prosecutor began by elaborating on that in their decision of the required sentence the Prosecutor considered the severity of the facts, the consequences on the Plaintiffs, her participation in IS and her sacred belief in IS. The Prosecutor posited that without IS members there would have been no IS, and that without citizens there would have been no Caliphate. The Prosecutor posited that IS had terrorized Iraq and Syria and that Hasna A. knew of this. The genocide against the Yazidis, involving rape, sexual slavery and total fleeing by the Yazidi community had left the community in despair. The Prosecutor elaborated that Yazidi people were not seen as humans and that Hasna A. was a part of this in having used two women as objects. Hasna A. had forced P1 to pray, clean and care for a stranger’s son, and P1 was not able to see her own children. The Prosecutor elaborated that P1 had stated that Hasna A. was comfortable with Muslims while the Yazidis were always Sabaya (while prevented from having fundamental rights). The Prosecutor posited that they could not understand Hasna A.’s decision to take her 4-year-old son who had a cognitive disability to Syria. It was also highlighted that [redacted name] spent more than half of his life (i.e. 7 years) in Syria which would have short- and long-term effects.

The Prosecutor elaborated that Hasna A.’s testimony on the first trial day that she felt guilty for what she had done could be discredited in that saying she felt remorse and having remorse were two different things. The Prosecutor highlighted that Hasna A. in her psychological analysis [see Trial Report 1, under her personal circumstances] she was found to not be able to see the consequences of her behavior on herself or others and found her remorse thus ingenuine. The Prosecutor posited that they believed that Hasna A. felt sorry for what she had gone through (and made herself out to be a victim) but did not feel responsible for what she had done to others. The Prosecutor highlighted that in Hasna A.’s testimony she had not taken responsibility for her acts against the Yazidi women or expressed remorse about the Yazidi community and showed no signs of empathy. The Prosecutor addressed what Hasna A. had testified in Court earlier in the day following the Plaintiffs’ right to speak, in that she simply said it was not true and felt bad for them but that they were lying. The Prosecutor said that this was something they had considered in Hasna A.’s punishment.

The Prosecutor then said that Hasna A. personal circumstances indicated that Hasna A. had a terrible youth, suffered from mental illnesses including borderline personality disorder. The Prosecutor highlighted how the expert reports conducted could not conclude on Hasna A.’s mental illnesses in her slavery charge, and the Prosecutor thus decided to fill in the facts that were known. The Prosecutor posited that Hasna A.’s analysis had shown that she was opportunistic in taking advantage of others to make her own situation better, that she was egocentric and was not able to consider the consequences of her actions. Thus, the Prosecutor posited that they could not consider Hasna A. entirely criminally responsible for the charge of slavery or the other charges due to her mental illnesses, but that she needs considerable guidance in preventing re-offense [which the other reports were able to comment on, in the previous Trial Report 1]. The Prosecutor also addressed that they had considered that Hasna A. had spent time in a camp following the fall of the Caliphate and that her time there had been difficult. The Prosecutor commented that she was the only one responsible for ending up in the camp due to the risks associated with being in a warzone, and that without her acts her children would not have ended up there too.

Prosecutor Blom concluded that the required sentence was not simple given that it required strong punishment but also consideration of her personal circumstances. The Prosecutor emphasized that while the crimes committed were individually very serious they should be considered cumulatively. The Prosecutor then elaborated on Dutch jurisprudence of similar charges and in the case of slavery as a crime against humanity addressed German jurisprudence (given that this is the first case in the Netherlands). Endangerment of a child in the Netherlands has in the case of 3 children brought to Syria led to imprisonment for 24 months, the Prosecutor highlighted in this case it involved an especially vulnerable child. The Prosecutor cited that participation in a terrorist organization has led to sentences of 4 years but that the crime of slavery as a crime against humanity has never been adjudicated on before in the Netherlands. Thus, the Prosecutor elaborated on German case law, citing the Nurten J. and Sarah O. cases, and the range of sentences in these cases from 3 to 6 years for slavery as a crime against humanity. The Prosecutor thus concluded that Hasna A. is required to face an unconditional prison sentence of 8 years.

The proceedings were adjourned at 4:40 PM

The next trial day will be on October 17, 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