Inside the Hasna A. Trial # 4: Trial Judgement

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

Trial Monitoring Summary #4

Hearing Date: December 11, 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 4th trial monitoring report details day 4 of the trial of Hasna A. in Schiphol Judicial Complex in Badhoevedorp, The Netherlands. On this trial day, the Judges gave the final judgement of the trial of Hasna A.

Day 4 – December 11, 2024

On this trial day, the final judgement of the trial against Hasna A. began at 10:15AM at the Schiphol Judicial Complex, Badhoevedorp, the Netherlands before the International Crimes Chamber of the District Court of the Hague. The public spectators were able to sit in the courtroom in the back, with 9 public spectators and 3 members of the press present. Hasna A. was present online by video link, P1 and P2 were present online on the livestream. [Hasna A. was seen laughing in the call, when the public was allowed to enter the courtroom]. Both the Defense Counsels and Plaintiffs’ Counsels were present in the courtroom.

Opening of the Fourth Trial Day

The Presiding Judge Snoeijer opened the proceedings addressing Hasna A. online and the Plaintiffs online. He elaborated that the judgement would be given this morning, followed by a written verdict online later in the day [can be found here]. Judge Snoeijer provided that the Judges would first establish the facts relied upon for the judgement pertaining to IS, the Yazidi attack and Hasna A.’s travel, followed by their assessment of the charges.

Factual Findings

The Court announced its factual findings: Judge Wieringa began by addressing the facts pertaining to the Islamic State, stating that ISIL had declared the Caliphate in Iraq and Syria on June 29, 2014. ISIL became IS and was understood as a Jihadist-Salafist organization that called for the violent overthrow of secular regimes and residents of the Caliphate were expected to convert to Islam. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi named himself the Caliph and Muslims were called upon to take an oath of allegiance to the Caliph. IS systematically relied on extreme violence, including beheadings and crucifixions that were shared online via social media and the internet. Judge Wieringa highlighted that IS has been considered a terrorist organization by Dutch Courts in several cases.

Judge Wieringa continued to address the attack of the Yazidis and slavery, she began by addressing that in 2014 the majority of the Yazidi population in Iraq lived around the Sinjar Mountains, north of Mosul, and in the Iraqi Kurdish province of Dohuk, around the city of Sheikhan. She explained that on August 3, 2014, IS attacked the Sinjar area in Iraq carried out by hundreds of IS fighters. At the time, Sinjar had around 400,000 Yazidis living there. Following the attack, many Yazidis fled to the Sinjar Mountains which IS eventually surrounded and besieged. Yazidis who did not manage to escape were captured or killed by IS, Yazidi men and older boys who refused conversion to Islam were executed. Yazidi women and girls were captured and taken to areas in Syria and Iraq and subjected to slavery. Children were separated from their mothers, girls above the age of nine were separated and used as slaves.

Judge Wieringa elaborated that official IS documents indicated that slavery was legitimized through reference to passages from the Quran and Sunnah, in which slavery was considered an early Islamic practice. Yazidis were seen as ghanima (war booty) and sabaya (slave) and were distributed among IS fighters. Souq Sabaya (slave markets) were set up throughout the Caliphate where Yazidi women and children were sold and bought, online trading also occurred. In addition to legitimization, IS also created documents and manuals on how to deal with and treat slaves. These documents permitted sexual contact with slaves, even with a minor, the use of physical violence and punishment if escape was attempted. Slaves were also allowed according to the documents to be traded or used between IS fighters. Yazidis slaves were abused, used as sex slaves and forced to work for IS fighters and their families, slaves would face severe punishments if they resisted (sexual) violence. Their children were often used to threaten obedience and if they tried to escape, severe punishments were given including death or serious abuse including gang rape and collective punishment.

Judge Wieringa continued by addressing the experiences of P1 and P2 as Yazidi slaves. She explained that P1, following the attack in August 2014, fled with her family to the Sinjar mountains and after one night was captured by IS with her three daughters and son. P2 had also been captured after she had fled to the mountains. In January 2015, five months after the attack P1 and P2 were taken to Raqqa with many other Yazidis. After staying in various locations including a farm and underground prison, P1 and P2 were taken to a house on Intifada street in Raqqa with another Yazidi woman. The women stayed in the house with IS fighters, Abu Ahmad, Abu Abdullah and Abu Walid. Each of the women were assigned to one of the fighters and were forced to sleep in a room with the men and were sexually abused. [session paused due to technical problems with the livestream online] P1 was assigned to Abu Ahmad and P2 was assigned to Abu Abdullah. Judge Wieringa continued that the house was locked so that the women could not escape, the women were forced to do household chores such as cleaning, doing the laundry and cooking 7 days a week. They were forced to convert to Islam and pray five times a day. If they did not do what was asked of them, the women were beaten. After three months, P1 moved to another house with Abu Ahmad, while P2 stayed in the house on Intifada Street with Abu Abdullah. After moving, P1 continued to be forced to do housework and sleep in a room with Abu Ahmad. She continued to be sexually abused and was threatened to be sold to another IS fighter if she did not obey. Judge Wieringa explained that in September 2015, P1 moved with Abu Ahmad and her son (P1 had managed to regain contact with him). In the city she moved to, P1 contacted a Kurdish smuggler at an internet café and on  November 7, 2015 escaped with her son with the smuggler.

Judge Wieringa continued by addressing the facts of Hasna A.’s preparations and departure for Syria. She explained that Hasna A. had begun to study Islam in September 2014 by reading the Quran and praying. Before that time, she had not been practicing and started studying Islam to have something to hold on to. In December 2014, Hasna A. began to dress in an Islamic style with a headscarf and long robes. According to the testimonies from her peers at the time, Hasna A.’s Facebook profile contained several photos including the IS flag with an AK 47 and bullets, a photo of fighters with weapons in the desert and a photo of fighters praying on the ground with weapons on the ground next to them.

Hasna A. had been active on the internet on IS pages and had come into contact with people who were in Syria. Hasna A. had prior to her departure acquired knowledge about IS, so that she knew what to expect. In February 2015, Hasna A. decided to travel to the Caliphate in Syria because she saw it as her duty as a Muslim to perform the hijrah. Judge Wieringa highlighted that Hasna A. had in the previous trial days [see Trial Report #1] stated that she knew at the time there was a war in Syria and what IS was doing. According to Hasna A. she had gained this knowledge via the internet, social media and the news. Judge Wieringa explained that Hasna A. had contacted a random person on one of the IS pages and asked if he could help her get to Syria. He had instructed her to buy a plane ticket to Turkey and to contact him when she was in Turkey. Hasna A. had then bought two plane tickets for her and her four-year-old son with developmental problems from Düsseldorf International Airport to Antalya for February 17, 2015. Upon arrival in Turkey, Hasna A. had called her contact person, he gave her instructions to travel with her son to a specific pick-up location in Turkey where they would be taken to a house where people there would help them cross the border into Syria.

Judge Wieringa explained that following her arrival in Syria, Hasna A. was placed in a madafa together with her son. Upon arrival at the madafa, Hasna A. was interrogated to check whether she was a spy, she stayed in the house for two to three weeks, after which she and her son were transferred to another madafa in Raqqa. It was in this madafa that Hasna A. married an IS fighter with the kunya (nickname) Abu Zubeir, who was originally from Morocco in early May 2015. His real name remains unknown.

Judge Wieringa continued that Hasna A. had three children with Abu Zubeir and shared photos of them via WhatsApp. On January 30, 2016, she sent a photo of her son and daughter wearing a bracelet with the IS logo on it to her father. Hasna A. lived in several places in both Syria and Iraq, and was forced to move due to bombings, fighting and the shrinking of the area controlled by IS. On one occasion, Hasna A.’s house was hit during a bombing, Hasna A. was pregnant at the time and was in hospital that day for an ultrasound. Hasna A. sent messages to her father informing him of the situation. Judge Wieringa explained that Hasna A.’s daily activities consisted of doing housework and taking care of the children, she also watched videos that IS released showing violence. According to Judge Wieringa, Hasna A. supported Sharia law. Judge Wieringa cited two messages sent by Hasna A. to her father. On February 10, 2017, she wrote that “I heard that the dogs are now banning women who wear the niqab/burka […] this is how you see papa how these dirty kuffar treat us Muslims. When are you coming this way? […] fear Allah papa; this world is nothing”. Hasna A. had also asked her father several times to come to her, she had sent on October 12, 2024 “come this way, you’ll live a better life than in the Netherlands”.

Judge Wieringa explained that Hasna A. and her family survived on the money that Abu Zubeir received from IS every month. Abu Zubeir left most days early in the morning and did not return until late in the evening, sometimes he was gone for a longer period. Abu Zubeir was once injured in a bombing and carried weapons (he had a pistol and an AK 47). Hasna A. carried a weapon twice, which according to her testimony was because her husband told her to. In 2018, when Hasna A. was pregnant with her youngest child, Abu Zubeir pronounced the divorce. After the birth of their child in July 2018, their divorce was finalized. Hasna A. no longer received money from her husband and thus registered with IS so that she could receive food and water. Hasna A.’s name, according to Judge Wieringa, appeared in several documents of the IS administration, her name was registered by the “Combatant Affairs’ Department” and the “Center for (War) Prisoners and Martyrs” in the province of Al Baraka during the period from July 9, 2018 to February 26, 2019. It is noted that the accused received food and ten units of flour from IS. In 2019, Hasna A. and her children were in the Al Baraka province (which was the last territory controlled by IS). Hasna A. left for Al-Hol camp in February 2019 and was repatriated to the Netherlands in early November 2022.

Judge Wieringa also elaborated briefly on the time Hasna A. stayed with P1. Shortly after her marriage, Hasna A. stayed with her son in P1 and Abu Ahmad’s house for about a month. Hasna A. was given her own room. When Hasna A. was not in her room, she came into contact with P1. Judge Wieringa highlighted that Hasna A. had stated that P1 was doing housework, and that she knew P1 was a Yazidi woman who had been enslaved by Abu Ahmad.

Assessment of Charges: Participation in Terrorist Organization

Judge Vriend continued with providing the Court’s assessment of the charges in light of the established facts. Regarding the first charge of participation in a terrorist organization, Judge Vriend reiterated that case law establishes that IS is a terrorist organization. He continued that Hasna A. chose to travel to Syria despite knowing of the war in Syria. Hasna A. had deliberately gained knowledge prior to her departure in order to know what to expect. Judge Vriend stated that her journey to the Caliphate was therefore not just motivated by the desire to be able to lead a quiet and undisturbed life. Upon arrival in the Caliphate she chose to marry an active IS fighter. Hasna A. shared a household with him and benefited financially from him and thus IS. The support financially meant that she devoted herself to the household and raising the children, which was seen as an important task for women within IS. Abu Zubeir had weapons and Hasna A. carried one of his weapons at least twice. Judge Vriend highlighted that even after her separation from Abu Zubeir, Hasna A. chose to remain within IS territory and turned to IS for support until the fall of the Caliphate. Judge Vriend stated that Hasna A. placed herself under the authority of IS for the entire period of her stay and obliged with the rules of Sharia imposed by IS and had made this choice with conviction. Judge Vriend continued that Hasna A. spread the ideology of IS to people in her environment, including her father when she asked him to come to the Caliphate. Judge Vriend stated that Hasna A. made a convicted and conscious choice to remain in IS territory and thus strengthened the sphere of influence of IS in terms of numbers. He elaborated that Hasna A. contributed to IS’ terrorist objective and knew about the armed conflict and extreme violence that IS used (derived from her statements in the previous trial days) [see Trial Report #1]. Hasna A. was up to date with what was happening in Syria, if not only from the IS videos she watched. Judge Vriend thus stated that Hasna A. was regarded as a member of and therefore participant in the terrorist organization IS in the period February 17, 2015 to February 26, 2019.

Judge Vriend then continued to the second charge of preparation and facilitation of acts with terrorist intent. He addressed that several of the legal requirements could be considered met from the previous charge, but that in the specific acts of (A) (adopting extremist ideas); B (obtaining information about travelling to the conflict zone); C (travelling to Syria); D (joining IS fighters); E (contributing to the armed jihad); F (sharing IS propaganda); and G (carrying firearms) additional considerations were made. Judge Vriend stated that acts A, B, C, and D were inferred from the evidence of Hasna A.’s departure preparations while she was in the Netherlands and acquired ideological convictions. Acts E and F were not considered by the court proven legally or convincingly. Act G was proven legally and convincingly, Hasna A. admitted to carrying a firearm. Judge Vriend thus posited that Hasna A. was guilty of promoting and preparing terrorist crimes in the period of February 17, 2015, to February 26, 2019.

Assessment of Charges: Placing and/or Leaving a Child in a Helpless Condition

Judge Vriend then addressed the third charge of placing and/or leaving her child in a helpless condition. He stated that Hasna A. had taken her son to the conflict zone in Syria and Iraq around February 17, 2015. Hasna A. stated that at the time of departure she knew there was a war going on in Syria and in taking her son there she willfully and knowingly accepted the considerable chance that there would be danger to her son’s life or health and thus placed him in a helpless condition. He stated that Hasna A.’s statements that she wanted to live in a quiet area did not make a difference as she knowingly and deliberately travelled to a war zone. Judge Vriend continued that the Defense’s claim that Hasna A. lacked insight into her actions and their consequences should mean that intent in the crime was lacking was not accepted by the Court. Judge Vriend continued that Hasna A. not only put her son into a helpless state but also left him in such a state. WhatsApp messages and her statement indicated that her son was exposed to dangers such as bombings and shelling. The Judge continued that her son was denied the care he needed (in light of his developmental problems). Judge Vriend elaborated that the ability for a parent and child to leave the conflict zone may play a role in the assessment of deliberately leaving a child in a helpless state. However, Judge Vriend stated that the case file did not provide sufficient evidence that she was unable to leave and that she even actively chose to stay, which meant that the Court is of the opinion that Hasna A. did not want to leave the conflict zone. Several times Hasna A. asked her father to come to Syria and join her, even after she had been in IS territory for a considerable time and influence in IS was diminishing. Judge Vriend concluded that Hasna A. was guilty of the charge of placing and/or leaving her child in a helpless condition until February 26, 2019.

Assessment of Charges: Slavery as a Crime Against Humanity

Judge Vriend continued with the fourth and fifth charges of enslavement as a crime against humanity against P1 and P2. He began by establishing that there was a widespread and/or systematic attack on a civilian population by IS. Judge Vriend provided that the factual findings indicated IS’ attack against the Yazidi community in August 2014. The enslavement and trafficking of captured Yazidi women was part of their attack. Yazidi women were forced to work as domestic workers for IS families and many of them were exposed to abuse and rape. Judge Vriend stated that these acts, given their nature and scale, could be considered an attack on a civilian population. He elaborated that the attack led to the displacement of thousands of Yazidis, killed many hundreds and thousands more were still missing. Given the large number of victims from the IS attack, the Court considered commission of a widespread attack could be fulfilled. Furthermore, the attack on the Yazidi community involved a pre-established plan and a process in selecting and separating Yazidis based on gender and age. Yazidi women were transported in an organized manner by bus and truck before being traded in slave markets set up specifically for that purpose. Enslavement of the Yazidis was legitimized, approved and encouraged by IS. The Court thus also considered that this was a systematic attack.

Judge Vriend continued that the Court believed Hasna A. was aware of the attack on the Yazidi community. The Court considered that Hasna A. stated at the substantive hearing that she knew about the existence of the Yazidi community and that she knew that P1 was a Yazidi woman [see Trial Report #1]. He also stated that Hasna A. knew that P1 was used as a slave by Abu Ahmad, was not free and could not escape. Judge Vriend stated that Hasna A.’s denial of knowing about the Yazidi attack by IS was not considered credible by the Court. He continued that the attack on the Yazidi community and the enslavement of women and children was part of life in the Caliphate. Many Yazidi women were taken to Raqqa and sold at slave markets there. Judge Vriend emphasized that Hasna A. was in Raqqa during the charged offence. He also stated that during this period, IS published about slavery and the treatment of the Yazidis, which were publicly available. Judge Vriend stated that Hasna A.’s denial was further deemed implausible because Hasna A. personally met several enslaved women and their owners at Friday night dinners. He stated that this meant that Hasna A. could have known P1’s enslavement was not an isolated incident. The Court thus found that Hasna A. was aware of the IS attack on the Yazidi community and aware of IS’ practice of enslavement.

Assessment of Charges: P1’s Enslavement

Judge Vriend then focused on the specific charge of enslavement pertaining to P1, he acknowledged that the charge against Hasna A. relied considerably on P1’s statements. The Court was cautious given the reliance on the statements and given the considerable time that elapsed between the alleged events and the statements. Judge Vriend explained that P1 made statements at various times to various organizations about what she had experienced after the IS attack in Sinjar, including UNITAD. In her statement to UNITAD, P1 made assertions about Hasna A. and her conduct. The Court found that the statements of P1 were sufficiently consistent regarding important elements including, her capture by IS, separation from her children, ending up in the house on Intifada street in Raqqa and being taken by Abu Ahmad to another home where Hasna A. lived with them temporarily. Judge Vriend also addressed that there were discrepancies in the statements made at UNITAD and the Dutch Court Commissioner, pertaining to for example the number of times Hasna A. stayed at P1’s house and Hasna A.’s attitude to P1. However, the Court considered that these discrepancies did not carry enough weight to render the statements by P1 unreliable. Judge Vriend explained that the statements from UNITAD and the Dutch Court Commissioner were made in different contexts and ways. He highlighted that UNITAD had asked less about the details of Hasna A.’s involvement. Judge Vriend thus stated that the statements by P1 to UNITAD and the Dutch Court Commissioner could be used as evidence and thus were relied upon by the Court as a starting point.

Judge Vriend then elaborated on the exercise of any or all of the powers associated with the right of ownership against P1 for the fulfilment of the slavery charge. He elaborated that based on the facts, P1 was enslaved and owned by Abu Ahmad. P1 was required to live with him, do housework for him, including doing the laundry, cooking and cleaning. Abu Ahmad forced P1 to sleep with him, sexually abused her and used violence against her. The case file indicated that at some point P1 had the key to the house and was physically able to leave the house. Judge Vriend stated that contrary to what the Defense argued the Court believed that this did not detract from the fact that P1 was unable to escape, given that she was in the capital of the Caliphate and fleeing as a Yazidi woman was not a real option and that she did not want to flee without her children. Judge Vriend continued that P1 was used as a slave by Abu Ahmad and that Hasna A. knew of this. During the substantive hearing, when Hasna A. was questioned on P1’s position, Hasna A. stated that she herself “was free”, which the Court considered as an implication that P1 was not free and kept as a slave. Judge Vriend elaborated that the Court found that Hasna A. increased the amount of work that P1 had to do by also having to prepare food for Hasna A., wash the clothes of Hasna A. and her son and do other household chores. The Court also believed that Hasna A. gave orders to P1 to do household work and take care of her son, not only when P1 was alone with Hasna A. but also when Abu Ahmad was present. Judge Vriend thus stated that the Court disregarded Hasna A.’s contradictory statements about what happened in Abu Ahmad’s house. Judge Vriend declared that Hasna A. had not only taken advantage of the existing situation by having P1 perform tasks for her and her son, but also actively gave orders to P1, which meant that Hasna A. had not only maintained P1’s enslavement but also actively contributed to it. According to Judge Vriend, the evidence also indicated that P1 was convinced that she could not refuse Hasna A.’s orders and that refusal would lead to punishment by Abu Ahmad. The Court found that P1’s belief was justified and was of the opinion that while Hasna A. had never used violence against P1, she knew that Abu Ahmad used violence against P1. Judge Vriend also stated that Hasna A. knew of the particularly vulnerable position of P1 and took advantage of it by having P1 perform forced labor and put P1 in a submissive position in which any form of autonomy was deprived. Judge Vriend also rejected the Defense’s claim that the incriminating statements of P1 were not sufficiently supported by other evidence and the standard of proof of Article 342(2) of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure. With regards to her liability, Hasna A. was found to have a sufficiently close relationship with Abu Ahmad, given that she moved into his home and knew of P1’s enslavement. Judge Vriend concluded that the Court found Hasna A. guilty of aiding and abetting enslavement as a crime against humanity of P1 from 1 May 2015 to 1 October 2015.

Assessment of Charges: P2’s Enslavement

Judge Vriend elaborated that the charge against Hasna A. regarding P2’s enslavement also relied considerably on P2's statements. Judge Vriend elaborated that P2 had also made several statements at different times and organizations. The Court found that these statements by P2 contained significant discrepancies pertaining to the conduct of Hasna A. These discrepancies were so great that they could not be explained by the way the statements were made or timelapse between the events and making of the statements. Thus, the Court deemed the statements by P2 inadmissible as evidence. Furthermore, Judge Vriend stated that “switch” evidence was not addressed by the Court as such a construction would require statements by P2 to be supported by other statements. However, since P2’s statements were not deemed admissible as evidence, this is not possible and thus Hasna A. was acquitted of the charge of enslavement of P2 as a crime against humanity.

Assessment of Charges: Conclusion

Judge Vriend concluded that the Court declared the following charges proven against Hasna A.: (1) participation in a terrorist organization, (2) preparation and promotion of crimes with terrorist intent, (3) intentional placing and leaving her child in a helpless condition and (4) aiding and abetting in enslavement as a crime against humanity against P1. Hasna A. was acquitted of the charge of aiding and abetting enslavement as a crime against humanity against P2.

Damages Claim

Judge Snoeijer then addressed the damages claim by the Plaintiffs prior to giving the punishment. He reiterated that P1 claimed €30,000 and P2 claimed €25,000 for non-material damages. Judge Snoeijer provided that the question of damages would only be pursued with regards to P1 as Hasna A. had been acquitted of the charge against P2. The Judge elaborated that both P1 and P2 had undeniably suffered and were severely traumatized, but that the question of damages had to be linked to the conduct of Hasna A. Judge Snoeijer explained that the claims of the Plaintiffs were subject to substantive civil law under Article 10(2) of the Civil Code and Syrian civil law. Judge Snoeijer elaborated that Syrian law was applied for the assessment of the claims of the injured parties given that the damaging events on the Plaintiffs had occurred in Syria. The Judge continued that the Plaintiffs’ Counsels had provided an expert report on Syrian law which had not provided enough of a legal basis for the Court to establish these issues and required an assessment of liability and damages under Syrian law. The Court also found that the damages claims within criminal proceedings was a simple procedure, which did not offer the same procedural guarantees as ordinary civil proceedings. Judge Snoeijer explained that the obligation to apply foreign law reaches its limit where the application and acquisition of knowledge required would place a disproportionate burden on the criminal proceedings. He elaborated that Syrian law is not easy to understand and that there are hardly any publicly accessible sources of law (at least not in translated versions). He also highlighted that the issues at hand not only required familiarity with the provisions of the Syrian Civil Code but also knowledge of Syrian legal practice and case law which was not readily available either. Judge Snoeijer stated that this would require the Court to seek further information from an expert other than the expert provided by the Plaintiffs. The Judge explained that while this possibility exists and was explored by the Court, it would be time-consuming and could require that the parties would have to be given the opportunity to respond to the Court’s findings on Syrian law once again, as this was a point that was only raised in the Defense’s final submission in the substantive hearing. Judge Snoeijer stated that this would lead to an unacceptable delay in the judgement of the case and would go beyond the nature of the procedure in criminal proceedings. He emphasized that P1 can bring her claim before the civil court, so that the claim can be assessed in regular proceedings.

Imposed Punishment

Judge Snoeijer then continued with the imposed punishment by the Court, he clarified that the punishment was determined based on the seriousness of the acts committed, the circumstances under which they were committed and based on the personal circumstances of the Accused. He first addressed that in February 2015, more than half a year after the Caliphate was declared, Hasna A. travelled to Syria with her son. At the time, Hasna A. knew about the armed conflict and ideology of IS, but left the Netherlands, nonetheless. In Syria, Hasna A. joined the terrorist organization IS and married a fighter. Hasna A. embraced the extremist ideology of IS and spent years in areas controlled by IS until the fall of the Caliphate, thus strengthening the power of IS through her presence. During her marriage, Hasna A. helped her husband in his work for IS by doing housework and caring for him. She also knew he had firearms in possession and thus facilitated the commission of terrorist crimes.

Judge Snoeijer continued that groups like IS aimed to establish an Islamic state in which the rights of dissenters are systematically and violently violated. It is a fact that the violence IS used to achieve its goals was extremely cruel and that large scale serious crimes were committed against dissenters, such as summary executions, murder, torture, slavery and mutilation of prisoners of war and civilians. Judge Snoeijer explained that numerous attacks were committed not only in Syria and Iraq but also in Europe and the rest of the world. Judge Snoeijer highlighted that these attacks fueled one of IS’ important goals to sow fear and division among the – in their eyes- unbelieving part of the world population. Judge Snoeijer stated that Hasna A. completely ignored all of this and the indescribable suffering that affected many in the conflict zone and beyond when she joined IS.

Judge Snoeijer elaborated on the attack against the Yazidi community in August 2014, he stated that thousands of members of the Yazidi community were killed and kidnapped in the premeditated attack. He emphasized that adult men and boys in puberty were killed or forced to convert to Islam after which they were forced to work for IS, underage boys were transported to IS training camps. The captured women and girls were made into (sex) slaves and sold or distributed to IS fighters. Judge Snoeijer continued that the slavery of Yazidi women and girls was approved and legitimized by IS on the basis of the Quran, Sunnah and their interpretation thereof. He stated that slavery thus became a part of daily life within the Caliphate and the widespread and systematic attack by IS on the Yazidis was considered as a crime against humanity which left deep scars on the Yazidi community. Judge Snoeijer elaborated that crimes against humanity are among the most serious international crimes and are of concern to the entire international community. Prohibition of slavery is a rule so fundamental to the international legal order that deviation from it is unacceptable. Judge Snoeijer emphasized that the attack by IS on the Yazidi community, in which women and girls were enslaved, sparked widespread international outrage and concern.

Judge Snoeijer then highlighted that in this specific case, profound suffering had been caused. P1’s statements indicated that she was assigned to an IS fighter and held in his home in appalling conditions where she faced forced labor and (sexual) violence. The Judge addressed that Hasna A. knew that P1 had been enslaved by IS, knew that P1 could not escape the situation and yet did not try to prevent her suffering. Judge Snoeijer declared that in fact Hasna A. had also given P1 orders and was thus guilty of slavery. He also emphasized that Hasna A. did this in the knowledge that what happened in the home was part of a larger whole, namely the widespread and systematic attack on the Yazidi community. The Court therefore held Hasna A. very seriously responsible [Judge Snoeijer speaks with firm tone and looks at screen with Hasna A.].

Judge Snoeijer also stated that Hasna A.’s conscious decision to travel and stay in the IS war zone for years also led to irreversible consequences for her son. He explained that her son spent a large part of his youth in an IS-controlled war zone, and he did not receive special care or guidance that he needed given his problems during this entire period. He stated that the Court also held Hasna A. highly responsible for this.

Judge Snoeijer briefly referred to Hasna A.’s previous criminal record and stated that she had not previously been convicted of similar crimes. He then addressed the personal circumstances of Hasna A. and stated that the Court had considered the contents of the tripartite report by Pro Justitia, the ideological interpretation report by NTA and the Probation Office’s advice. He first addressed the disorders and impaired mental development of Hasna A. He stated that the experts (a psychologist and psychiatrist) concluded that Hasna A. had a mild intellectual disability and a personality disorder at the time of committing the charged crimes. He explained that the personality disorder related to the very unsafe environment Hasna A. had grown up in and mainly consisted of borderline and avoidant traits. Judge Snoeijer elaborated that her personality disorder and intellectual disability lead to an increased degree of distrust and impulsiveness in Hasna A. She was also considered to be naïve and could not foresee the consequences of her acts and tended to flee in times of tension and stress. The Judge explained that the report indicated that these disorders had influenced Hasna A.’s decision to travel to Syria and her choices in committing the charges. The report advised that these hold Hasna A. to a lesser extent accountable. Judge Snoeijer also addressed that Hasna A.’s denial during the proceedings meant that the experts were unable to determine whether the identified problems had an impact on her behavioral choices with regard to the slavery offences. However, the Judge explained that the Court found that the conclusions and advice from the report were able to be applied to the charge of slavery against P1 and would also mean diminished criminal responsibility.

Judge Snoeijer then elaborated on the risk of recidivism reports which had concluded that Hasna A. had adopted some extremist views. However, he explained that the report indicated that Hasna A. had distanced herself from IS given her negative experiences as a woman in the Caliphate and her marriage to an extremist person and expressed that she had no ambition to emigrate. Judge Snoeijer continued that the report stated that her extremist views were very superficial and that her extent of religious knowledge was very limited. The Judge clarified that the Pro Justitia report stated that the general risk of violent behavior and risk of recidivism of the charged crimes were limited, whereas the Probation Office considered the risk of recidivism low but risk of extremist violence as moderate.

Judge Snoeijer then addressed the punishment modality and sentence. He explained that in determining the type and extent of the punishment, the Court sought to align itself with the jurisprudence of similar cases. He noted that no Accused has previously been convicted of slavery in the Netherlands and that for this criminal offence (which carries the most weight in sentencing) no comparison can be made with other cases. He stated that this was different from participation in a terrorist organization, where the starting point for sentencing is an unconditional prison sentence of 6 years regardless of the proven period. The Judge explained that due to the substantive connection between this charge and preparatory and promotion charge, this charge would not carry any additional weight with regards the sentence imposed. Judge Snoeijer elaborated that the crime of placing and leaving minor children in a helpless state carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. He stated that by travelling to a war zone and staying in the IS Caliphate, the suspect placed and left her minor son in such danger that the Court was of the opinion that a prison sentence of two years (the maximum prison sentence) should be taken as a starting point.

Judge Snoeijer addressed slavery as a crime against humanity and stated that it is an extremely serious offence which justified a long-term unconditional prison sentence of several years. In determining the sentence, the Judge explained that consideration was made for aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Judge clarified that Hasna A. despite having distanced herself from IS still held some extremist views, which were also noted in the substantive hearing. He highlighted how Hasna A. had during the substantive hearings referred to IS members as brothers and sisters and stated that she supports Sharia law. The Judge explained that this was a worrying stance and considered it an aggravating circumstance. In terms of mitigation, the Judge clarified that the Court took into account that Hasna A. had not personally participated in the armed struggle, and that her contribution to the jihad (although not unimportant) was indirect. He also stated that after the fall of the Caliphate, Hasna A. spent a long time in the Al-Hol and Al-Roj detention camps under poor conditions and already suffered significant negative consequences as a result of her actions. Finally, he clarified that in determining the length of the sentence the court also took into account Hasna A.’s diminished responsibility.

Judge Snoeijer made a brief comment with regards to the reasonable term given the duration of the criminal case. He clarified that the starting point for cases involving pre-trial detention is that the hearing must be completed with a final judgment within 16 months after arrest unless there are special circumstances. He acknowledged that the judgement today came 25 months after her arrest on November 2, 2022 which meant that the reasonable term had been exceeded by 9 months. He explained that in this case delay derived from the investigation entailing the hearing of witnesses residing abroad. However, he posited that given the nature and seriousness of the case, the Court saw no reason to reduce the sentence and considered it sufficient to state that the reasonable term had been exceeded.

Judge Snoeijer concluded that it was the opinion of the Court after weighing all aspects [i.e. seriousness of the facts, personal circumstances of the Accused, principles for sentences, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances], no other response can be given than an unconditional prison sentence of a duration that is longer than required by the Prosecution. Judge Snoeijer stated that a fully unconditional prison sentence of 10 years was appropriate and necessary. The time that Hasna A. had spent in pre-trial detention would be deducted from this.

Judge Snoeijer stated that the Defense and Prosecution Office would have two weeks to submit an Appeal.

[Judge Snoeijer then asked to immediately disconnect the call with Hasna A. and adjourned the proceedings]

The proceedings were adjourned at 11:05 AM

  ___________________________

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