Click here to view Arabic translation.

On 23 September 2026, the final hearing took place before the District Court of The Hague, sitting in Rotterdam, in the case concerning the accused’s alleged involvement with IS and his alleged position within the organisation’s security service, the Amni. The hearing followed the prosecution’s closing argument of 16 September 2026 and was primarily devoted to the prosecution’s rebuttal to the defence’s pleadings. The prosecution addressed the defence’s arguments concerning the admissibility and reliability of the evidence, the identity of the accused, the alleged participation in IS as a terrorist organisation, the nexus between the alleged crimes and the armed conflict in Syria, the alleged war crimes, and the accused’s alleged leadership position. The defence subsequently made a limited response to the prosecution’s rebuttal and maintained that the evidence was insufficient to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The hearing also addressed the accused’s pre-trial detention and the further procedural schedule.

At the beginning of the hearing, it was mentioned that a new interpreter for the accused was present.

The prosecution rebuttal

The prosecution then delivered its reply to the defence’s pleadings. The prosecutor explained that the reply followed the structure of the defence’s pleadings and was intended to address the principal arguments raised by the defence. The prosecution argued that several of the defence’s arguments lacked a factual basis or were factually incorrect. It also noted that a number of the defence’s criticisms had already been addressed, at least in part, in the prosecution’s closing argument.

The prosecution first addressed the defence’s request to declare the prosecution inadmissible. According to the prosecution, any procedural violations would have to be sufficiently serious before they could result in such a consequence on the basis of the right to a fair trial. The prosecution argued that the alleged violations relied upon by the defence did not reach that threshold. Referring to Supreme Court case law and the European Convention on Human Rights, the prosecution maintained that a violation of procedural rights would only justify such a far-reaching consequence where it affected the fairness of the proceedings as a whole. In its view, the defence had not established such a situation.

The prosecution also responded to the defence’s reliance on the presumption of innocence. The defence had criticised public statements made by the prosecution and the public prosecutor concerning the case. Particular reference had been made to a press release by the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM). The prosecution stated that it was responsible for its own public statements, but not for statements made by an external foreign NGO such as SCM. According to the prosecution, the statements made by the public prosecutor had also not amounted to statements that the accused was guilty. The prosecution argued that the public prosecution service was permitted to discuss the suspicion against an accused and the factual basis of that suspicion without thereby presuming guilt. The prosecution therefore maintained that there had been no violation of the presumption of innocence. It also addressed the concerns that had arisen following statements made by the accused while in detention concerning a possible plan to escape from prison and potentially take personnel hostage. According to the prosecution, discussing concerns arising from the accused’s own statements and conduct did not amount to a violation of the presumption of innocence.

The prosecution further noted that the suspicion against the accused concerned a period of several years. It argued that the scope of the suspicion could therefore not be reduced to the question of whether the accused had merely held a leadership position. His alleged involvement over the wider period was relevant to the proceedings and could be discussed in court.

The prosecution then addressed the issue of anonymous witnesses. It acknowledged that there were several anonymous witnesses in the case file but emphasised that this was connected to the fear experienced by a number of witnesses. The prosecution argued that the existence of anonymous witnesses therefore had to be understood in the context of the investigation into IS.

The defence had also criticised the possibilities available to it to conduct its own investigation and had argued that there had not been equality of arms. The prosecution rejected this argument. It stated that it would have wanted to hear the relevant witnesses itself if this had been possible. With regard to witnesses connected to SCM, the prosecution explained that they had not been further heard, but that other possibilities had existed to obtain information from them, including audio recordings and other available material. The prosecution further emphasised that SCM material itself had not been used as evidence against the accused. Consequently, any uncertainties concerning the way in which SCM had operated could not, according to the prosecution, constitute a procedural violation attributable to the Dutch authorities.

The prosecution also addressed practical difficulties encountered during the investigation. It referred to the absence of a legal relationship with Syria and the difficult relationship with Turkey, explaining that witnesses could not simply be sent abroad to be interviewed. The prosecution further argued that ordinary cooperation between law-enforcement authorities did not necessarily require a formal mutual legal assistance request. When authorities from another country were asked whether they possessed information concerning a particular person, it was for that country to determine how it would respond. In relation to the material obtained from the FBI, the prosecution stated that the FBI had indicated that the material could be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. The absence of a formal legal assistance request therefore did not, in the prosecution’s view, prevent the material from being used.

The prosecution also responded to the defence’s reference to a partial acquittal in a German case. It argued that the German judgment established at most that the evidence available in that particular case had been insufficient for a conviction. Moreover, the accused did not appear in the relevant judgment. According to the prosecution, the German proceedings therefore did not establish that the evidence in the present Dutch proceedings was insufficient.

The prosecution acknowledged that the investigation had been complex and lengthy. It nevertheless rejected the suggestion that the complexity of the investigation provided a basis for excluding evidence.

The prosecution then addressed the defence’s criticism of the open-source intelligence material. The defence had argued that the messages and reports were insufficiently clear and reliable. The prosecution responded that the reliability of the available data carriers had been investigated as far as possible. They argued that the identity of the original persons behind individual pieces of information was not necessarily decisive for their reliability, because the context in which the information had been produced and circulated was also relevant. According to the prosecution, the journalists who had collected the information were reliable.
The prosecution further explained that four SCM witnesses had only been shown a photograph of the accused towards the end of their questioning and had not seen the photograph beforehand. It rejected the accused’s own explanations concerning his presence in Syria where those explanations were inconsistent with the other evidence.

The prosecution also returned to the SCM report, which had provided the initial impetus for the Dutch investigation. The defence had argued that witnesses might have influenced one another because one witness had referred investigators to another. The prosecution maintained that this was not inherently problematic. According to the prosecution, it only became problematic if witnesses had subsequently coordinated or aligned their statements. The prosecution argued that the defence’s suggestion of connections between witnesses was speculative and did not establish that their statements had been agreed in advance. The prosecution maintained that witness statements could remain reliable even where a witness had been involved with another armed group. It referred to the assessment by the investigating judge and argued that membership of or links with groups such as al-Nusra did not automatically undermine the reliability of a witness.

The prosecution also distinguished between witnesses who had been treated cautiously and those whose evidence had ultimately been rejected. One witness had given a consistent account of an incident that corresponded with publicly available information. The fact that IS had only been incompletely involved in that incident did not, according to the prosecution, make the witness’s statement unreliable. Another witness had been involved with an armed group, and the prosecution acknowledged that the evidence had therefore been assessed with particular caution. In that case, the witness’s evidence had ultimately been considered unreliable, and the prosecution stated that it did not rely on it.

The prosecution then returned to the question of the accused’s alleged position within IS. It emphasised that the suspicion concerned the accused’s involvement with IS as a whole. According to the prosecution, there was no meaningful basis for separating a supposed “terrorist side” of IS from another side of the organisation. The prosecution argued that the witnesses generally knew that the accused had been part of the Amni, although the precise roles and positions of different individuals within the IS hierarchy were difficult for witnesses to establish.

The prosecution also addressed the metadata associated with the material obtained from the FBI. It argued that the presence of metadata did not mean that the underlying information had necessarily originated from social media. The defence had pointed to an apparent missing file and an incorrect location in the material. The prosecution acknowledged these issues and explained that the location had subsequently been corrected and provided in a separate official report. According to the prosecution, these issues did not render the FBI material inherently unreliable.

The prosecution also responded to the defence’s interpretation of a video in which children could be seen. The defence had suggested that because of the children the footage might have been recorded at a wedding. The prosecution argued that the youngest person on the video was approximately 15/16, and it was not uncommon for IS to recruit boys of that age. There was therefore no indication in the video that it was recorded at a wedding. It further stated that the accused’s explanation was not reliable and questioned what independent evidence the defence had provided for the suggestion that the footage had been recorded at a wedding. The prosecution therefore maintained that the FBI material could not simply be dismissed as unreliable.

The prosecution then addressed the defence’s broader criticism of the witness evidence. It emphasised that the statements of anonymous witnesses were supported by other evidence. The defence, according to the prosecution, repeatedly separated individual pieces of evidence and identified inconsistencies in isolation. The prosecution argued that this was not the way in which courts assessed evidence. Instead, the evidence had to be considered as a whole, with inconsistencies assessed in the context of the overall evidentiary picture.

The prosecution stressed that both the quantity and the mutual coherence of the evidence were important. It argued that the court should therefore assess the photographs, witness statements, digital material and other evidence together rather than treating each piece as an independent and isolated question.

The prosecution subsequently addressed several specific inconsistencies relied upon by the defence. It maintained that the witness who had described seeing an execution could nevertheless be considered reliable and that the account was plausible in light of the way the accused himself had described relevant events. The fact that the witness had been wrong about the year of the execution was not, according to the prosecution, necessarily decisive for the reliability of the statement as a whole.

The prosecution also argued that the fact that information was generally known in the relevant community did not automatically make it a rumour. The context in which information had circulated was important. The prosecution maintained that the accused’s alleged position within IS and the Amni had been sufficiently well known in the relevant environment to explain why information about him had circulated among residents.

The prosecution further stated that the exculpatory statements relied upon by the defence had already been addressed in its closing argument.

The prosecution then returned to the relationship between Dutch criminal law and international criminal law. The defence had argued that the prosecution had not sufficiently established the connection between the accused’s conduct and the criminal or terrorist objective of the organisation. The prosecution responded that Dutch and international criminal law differed in several respects and that directly comparing the two systems could therefore amount to comparing different legal frameworks. Each criminal-law system had its own rules concerning participation. According to the prosecution, the Dutch court should apply the Dutch legal framework and the established Dutch interpretation of participation.

The prosecution subsequently addressed the nexus between the alleged crimes and the armed conflict. It maintained that arbitrary detention had already been addressed in recent jurisprudence and that the concept was broader than suggested by the defence.
The prosecution explained that the system of control exercised by IS and the climate of fear created by the organisation could not be separated from the armed conflict in which IS operated. It emphasised the distinction between States and organised armed groups: States are sovereign entities, whereas armed groups derive their authority in the relevant territory from the exercise of armed force. According to the prosecution, the violence exercised by IS and its control over territory therefore could not be separated from the armed conflict. This was relevant to establishing the required nexus.

The prosecution then returned to the issue of passing and executing sentences without prior judgment. It emphasised the distinction between different forms of passing and executing sentences and maintained that three forms recognised in ICC jurisprudence could apply in the present case. The existence of differences between the Dutch and English versions of the relevant provisions did not, according to the prosecution, make the English version unclear or inconsistent. The prosecution argued that the relevant provisions had to be interpreted with particular attention to due process and the requirement of a genuine judicial procedure before punishment was imposed or enforced.

The prosecution also addressed Article 7 of the International Crimes Act. It argued that the provision was intended to allow the Dutch legal framework to cover violations of international humanitarian law that were not specifically addressed elsewhere, including developments in future treaty law. The fact that arbitrary detention had not historically been recognised in the same way did not mean that it could not fall within the scope of Article 7. The prosecution maintained that the central question was whether detention prior to a judgment had been consistent with the applicable legal rules and procedures.

The defence had argued that the prison known as “the Four” had been used for relatively minor offences. The prosecution responded that several witnesses who had been detained there had seen the accused at that location. According to these witnesses, the facility was not a minor detention facility and people were detained there in circumstances involving torture and detention without proper proceedings. The prosecution argued that the defence had not demonstrated why the facility should be regarded as a prison for minor offences.

The prosecution clarified that the accused was not being prosecuted for his personal involvement in each of the individual executions that allegedly took place at the facility. Rather, the prosecution’s case was that he had held a leadership position within the Amni, an organisation in which executions without prior judgment had allegedly taken place.
The prosecution also referred to previous case law and argued that international jurisprudence did not necessarily have to be followed where the Dutch courts had developed their own applicable legal framework.

In concluding its reply, the prosecution returned to what it considered the central question for the court: whether the evidence, considered as a whole, supported the prosecution’s account or the accused’s explanation. According to the prosecution, the court ultimately had to determine whether all of the witnesses had independently been mistaken about the accused’s involvement or whether the evidence demonstrated that the accused was responsible for the conduct alleged against him.

The prosecution maintained that there were still serious objections against the accused and that the continued detention was justified by the seriousness of the allegations and the resulting concern to the shocked legal order (geschokte rechtsorde). It therefore opposed the defence’s request to lift or suspend the accused’s pre-trial detention and argued that there remained a basis for continued detention.

The defence

The defence then made a short response to the prosecution’s reply. The lawyer stated that most of the relevant issues had already been discussed extensively in the defence’s pleadings and that he therefore wished to focus on several specific points.

The defence first returned to the digital material. It argued that the origin of the data carriers remained unclear and that this uncertainty affected the evidentiary value of the material. According to the defence, it remained uncertain whether the data carriers actually originated from IS.

The defence also questioned the evidence of a witness concerning his alleged detention by IS. It argued that it remained difficult to establish precisely where and when this detention had taken place and whether the witness’s account was factually correct.

More generally, the defence maintained that the witness statements did not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It argued that the witnesses lacked sufficient certainty and that some witnesses had not been able to identify the accused as a member of the Amni. According to the defence, the witnesses had described what they believed to be the truth, but their accounts remained subjective.

The defence also argued that the persuasive value of some witness statements had been undermined by photographs of the accused that witnesses had seen before being questioned. It maintained that this created a risk that witnesses had subsequently identified the accused on the basis of information they had received rather than on the basis of their own memories.

The defence then highlighted what it considered to be a fundamental difference between its position and that of the prosecution. According to the defence, the prosecution appeared to argue that establishing that the accused had been a leader of the Amni was sufficient for a conviction. The defence disputed this. Even if the accused had been a leader, they argued, this did not automatically establish that he had committed the relevant offence.

The defence referred to the principle of act-based criminal liability, arguing that criminal liability requires an observable act rather than merely a state of mind or status. According to the defence, membership of an organisation could also take a passive form and could not by itself establish criminal participation.

The defence further argued that, where a person was alleged to have been a leader, concrete forms of participation should be identifiable. Examples could include giving orders, communicating with the media, leading meetings or taking other identifiable actions. In the present case, the defence argued that such concrete acts had not been established. The defence therefore stated that it would expect clear and observable conduct from someone alleged to have been a security chief within IS. In its view, the absence of such concrete conduct meant that the alleged leadership position could not, by itself, support a conviction.

The defence also returned to the consequences of the prosecution’s conduct and public reporting on the accused’s private life. It stated that the public statements and images concerning the case had affected the accused’s family. In particular, the accused’s daughter had allegedly been bullied because of the images and allegations circulating in the media, and a police report had ultimately been made.

Finally, the defence repeated its request to lift the accused’s pre-trial detention, arguing that the twelve-year ground and the other relevant grounds for detention were no longer present. In the alternative, it requested that the detention be suspended.

The defence’s request

The court subsequently ruled on the request concerning pre-trial detention. It decided not to lift the detention. The court considered that serious objections against the accused remained and referred to the continuing concern to the shocked legal order (geschokte rechtsorde). The court stated that the accused’s personal interests had been taken into account, but considered that they did not outweigh the reasons for continuing the detention.

The accused was given the opportunity to make a final statement but declined to do so.

The court then suspended the proceedings until 25 November 2026 at 13:00. The hearing on that date will be purely formal and will concern the formal closing of the proceedings. The judgment is scheduled for 4 December 2026 at 13:00 in Rotterdam.

Click here to view Arabic translation.

The Defence’s plea

The third day of the substantive hearing in the Arkel case was devoted to the defence’s plea. Before counsel began presenting the defence’s arguments, the Presiding Judge addressed an issue concerning the interpretation during an earlier hearing. Two interpreters had raised concerns about three parts of the translation provided by another interpreter. The Court stated that these remarks would be added to the official record and that the interpreters concerned would no longer participate in the case.

The defence then delivered an extensive plea, supported by a PowerPoint presentation. Counsel first addressed the broader context of the Syrian civil war and the defendant’s personal circumstances. The defence referred, among other things, to the loss of family members, the death of the defendant’s brother, his previous detention and torture in Sednaya prison and the suspicions he allegedly faced within his community because of perceived connections to the Assad regime. Against this background, the defence argued that it was difficult to reconcile the defendant’s own experiences with the allegation that he later became a senior member of IS.

The defence stressed that the case should not be assessed based on IS’s conduct in general, but on the evidence concerning the defendant himself. According to counsel, the chaotic circumstances of the Syrian conflict made it particularly important to distinguish between different armed groups, periods and geographical areas and to determine precisely which events could be attributed to whom.

A substantial part of the morning plea concerned the reliability of the witness evidence. The defence argued that several witnesses were anonymous or could not be fully questioned, limiting the possibility of assessing their statements. Counsel also pointed to inconsistencies between witness accounts and argued that some defence requests to examine witnesses had been rejected. In the defence’s view, these circumstances, combined with the limited preparation time available at different stages of the proceedings, affected the defendant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

On this basis, the defence primarily requested that the Public Prosecution Service be declared inadmissible. Alternatively, it argued that statements from anonymous witnesses should be excluded from the evidence.

The defence then addressed the identification of the defendant as the person known under the kunya. Much of the evidence relating to this identification originates from social media posts and other open-source material. Counsel argued that several sources which appeared to be independent could in fact be traced back to a relatively small and interconnected group of individuals. According to the defence, the authorities had insufficiently investigated the people behind these accounts and the connections between them.

The defence further argued that photographs and allegations about the defendant had already circulated online before several witnesses were questioned. This, counsel submitted, created a risk that later identifications were influenced by information encountered on social media rather than by witnesses’ own memories. The defence also pointed to contradictory online reports concerning the accused under the kunya attributed to him , including reports about his alleged detention, death or whereabouts, and argued that these inconsistencies undermined the reliability of the open-source material.

Similar concerns were raised regarding contacts between different groups of witnesses and organisations involved in documenting events in Syria. The defence argued that information may have been shared between witnesses before they gave statements to Dutch investigators, creating a risk that witnesses could no longer distinguish between what they had personally observed and information they had obtained from others.

Finally, counsel argued that the first part of the name of the accused was not unique and referred to several other individuals who allegedly used the same or a similar kunya. The defence also questioned the reliability and possible motives of several witnesses who had themselves been connected to armed groups. According to the defence, this provided an additional reason to approach their allegations against the defendant with caution.

The defence argued that the defendant could not be tied to any coherent command structure. It examined the vague concept of Amnis, the security apparatus supposedly running through IS’s ranks, noting that witnesses stated they weren’t sure who Amnis actually was. IS was very secretive about which people were Amnis; even people within IS did not know which persons were Amnis. Therefore, it is very unlikely that witnesses would know if the defendant was an Amni. 

Subsequently, the defence challenged pieces of evidence from a data carrier handed over to the prosecution by the FBI, whose origin nobody could actually trace. The defence suggested that the images may have been downloaded from Twitter rather than seized directly from IS. It further argued that the metadata indicated that they may have been compiled after the fact by someone researching IS, rather than by IS itself. According to witness statements, people were investigating IS in the area. The handful of photos of the defendant on the data carrier mostly came from a wedding in November 2013, which was attended by a combination of civilians, fighters, and children. 

Regarding the video of the defendant singing along to a song about conquering Rome, the defence argued that the lyrics had been adjusted and that he could join in without knowing them. The song’s lyrics apparently change depending on the occasion, and it is performed in a call-and-response style, where a leader sings a line, and everyone else sings it back.

Another photo showed the defendant beneath a flag; this picture was taken on the same day as the video. The defence stated that the flag in the picture wasn’t exclusive to IS; the Free Syrian Army used it too, and alliances of convenience between FSA and IS against the regime weren’t unheard of at the time. Even if some of the images originated from an IS-linked source, the defence argued, this did not establish that the defendant was a member of IS. The defence pointed out that many non-fighters also appeared in the same materials and that, in every photograph, the defendant was unarmed and wearing ordinary clothing that would not typically be worn by IS fighters.

Regarding a document listing 166 individuals, described by the prosecution as an IS personnel list, defence counsel questioned its compilation and raised the possibility that it had been altered. It referenced a date recorded on the list (November 19, 2013) and presented a timeline of the defendant’s marriage to contest the document´s implications. The religious ceremony took place in early 2013, official registration in October 2013, and subsequent cohabitation in 2014. The defence argued the defendant did not need the salary of IS, pointing to the defendant’s own income, savings, and later UNRWA assistance received by his wife. It was argued that the UNRWA assistance would have been essentially impossible for the family of an IS fighter to receive.

A recording that surfaced in July 2023, apparently containing a song referencing the defendant, was dismissed on similar grounds, as no one could say where it came from, when it was actually recorded, or whether the song, even if genuine, was really about him at all.

The defence categorised witnesses into four categories. The first category consisted of witnesses claiming direct, personal knowledge. The defence considered these witnesses inconsistent and unreliable, arguing that they contradicted both themselves and one another. According to the defence, the witnesses gave incorrect years, failed to recognise the defendant in photographs, confused which faction was active at particular times, or based their accounts on rumours presented as personal recollections. 

The second category consisted of witnesses who acknowledged that their knowledge was based on second-hand information or hearsay from others. Several of these witnesses also qualified or withdrew parts of their statements when questioned more closely by the investigating judge. The defence therefore also considered these witnesses unreliable. 

The third category consisted of witnesses who testified in the defendant’s favour. According to the defence, these were individuals who actually knew the defendant, lived in the same neighbourhood, and saw him regularly. They testified that they never saw him carrying a weapon or wearing the clothing typically worn by IS fighters. The defence also referred to a wiretapped conversation in which the defendant’s wife insisted that he had never carried a weapon.

The fourth category of witnesses was dismissed by the defence as simply unreliable. The defence argued that two witnesses had demonstrably lied about material parts of their accounts.

Turning to the legal architecture of the charges themselves, the defence argued that even if IS as an organisation had committed atrocities in Damascus, general culpability could not simply be transferred onto their client without a specific, provable link. It challenged whether punishments for conduct such as drug use or so-called “moral” offences could satisfy the required connection with the armed conflict itself, and questioned, citing the ICC’s Al Hassan judgment, whether detention without formal sentencing, particularly when the person was later released, could actually qualify as an unlawful deprivation of liberty under the relevant statute. It further questioned whether arbitrary detention was even clearly established as a standalone war crime under international law, warning against stretching the statute’s catch-all provision beyond what the principle of legal certainty would allow. The defence addressed each of the individual incidents raised by the prosecution, including killings, conditions at a facility known as Prison 4, and a separate, more severe facility referred to as Prison 0. In each case, it argued that the evidentiary record was too limited or contradictory, or that there was insufficient evidence linking the alleged conduct to the defendant personally.

Regarding the allegation that their client held a leadership role, the defence stated there was insufficient evidence to establish that he held such a position. It noted that the Amniyat encompassed multiple roles within IS, not all of which involved leadership responsibilities. Furthermore, the defence argued that everyone who had “Al-Amni” added to their kunja held a leadership position.    

The plea concluded with a request that the Court, first and foremost, find the Prosecution’s case inadmissible. If the Court were to determine that the case is admissible, the defence requested the Court to fully acquit the defendant on both the membership charge and underlying war crimes charges. If the Court were nonetheless to convict, the defence asked the Court to give significant weight to the toll of the defendant’s pre-trial detention. It argued that the defendant’s prolonged pre-trial detention had already violated his rights under Article 5, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, fractured his relationship with his children, and irreparably damaged the life he had been building in the Netherlands before his arrest. 

The defence requested a ruling on his pre-trial detention before October 14th, following a previous hearing in July.

The last hearings of the case will be held on the 23rd of September.

Click here to view Arabic translation.

Prosecution’s Closing Argument

On 16 September 2026, the hearing took place before the District Court of The Hague, sitting in Rotterdam, concerning the case against the defendant for his alleged involvement with IS and his role within the organisation’s security service, known as the Amni. The hearing was devoted to the prosecution’s closing argument. The prosecution addressed the investigation, the broader context of IS’s presence in Syria, the situation in Yarmouk and southern Damascus, the applicable legal framework, the evidence concerning the defendant’s identity and position within IS, the reliability of witness testimony, and the sentence it considered appropriate.

Background and Investigation

At the outset of the hearing, the prosecutor addressed the defendant’s position during the proceedings. According to the prosecution, the defendant had denied the allegations and had disputed that he was the person referred to by a witness under a kunya (an Arabic name or alias, often used as a nom de guerre). The prosecutor argued that the evidence presented in the case painted a different picture. The prosecution emphasised the seriousness of the allegations, describing them as involving terrorism and international crimes. Although the defendant was not being prosecuted in this case for specific individual killings or other individual war crimes, the prosecution stressed that Syrian civilians had suffered as a result of the conduct attributed to IS and its security apparatus. It argued that the seriousness of such crimes required accountability and that impunity should not be an option.

The prosecution then explained how the investigation had started. On June 4 2020, the International Crimes Team (TIM) of the Dutch police received a report from the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM), an independent organisation investigating serious human-rights violations in Syria. The report allegedly linked an individual using the kunya to IS and its security service, the Amni. According to the report, this person had held a leadership position within the security service of IS and was believed to be residing in the Netherlands. In 2021, TIM received battlefield evidence from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in which the defendant was identified as a personnel leader within IS. TIM subsequently conducted further investigations, including examining social-media posts and other available material. The investigation eventually led to the identification of the now 41-year-old defendant, who had lived in the Netherlands since 2019 and was residing in Arkel. He was arrested in January 2023.

The prosecution stated that the investigation ultimately involved 27 witnesses being heard by the police and 12 witnesses being heard by the investigating judge. According to the prosecution, the same kunya appeared in IS personnel lists and in other documentary material. Photographs and a video recovered from digital devices associated with IS allegedly showed the defendant together with prominent IS leaders.

The prosecution explained that the investigation had also involved obtaining material from German investigations and issuing requests through law-enforcement channels. However, according to the prosecution, this did not result in sufficient evidence to prosecute the defendant for specific individual war crimes. For that reason, the prosecution had decided to focus the indictment on the defendant’s alleged membership and leadership role within IS and, in particular, his alleged position within the Amni. The prosecution stated that the defendant was therefore not being prosecuted in this case specifically for individual killings, torture or other individual crimes allegedly committed by IS. This did, however, not exclude the possibility that additional evidence could lead to further proceedings at a later stage. The prosecution also noted that the investigation had taken considerable time because of the complexity of the case and that the defendant had by then spent more than three and a half years in pre-trial detention.

IS in Southern Damascus and the Applicable Legal Framework

The prosecution then placed the case within the broader context of the conflict in Syria. Particular attention was given to the Yarmouk camp and the surrounding neighbourhoods in southern Damascus. Yarmouk had originally been established to accommodate Palestinian refugees and had developed into a densely populated area of Damascus. There were no clearly defined boundaries within the camp; Syrians and Palestinians were able to interact with one another. During the Syrian civil war, the area became the scene of fighting between several armed groups. In 2012, the hostilities escalated, and in December, control over the camp was taken. The Syrian regime responded with bombardments, causing two-thirds of the camp’s population to flee. In 2013, the camp experienced severe famine, resulting in an extreme humanitarian disaster. In January 2014, some access was restored for supplies and food.

IS had already been present in Syria through its relationship and conflict with Jabhat al-Nusra. In April 2015, IS took control of Yarmouk. According to the prosecution, tensions between IS and Jabhat al-Nusra had increased, and IS subsequently expelled fighters belonging to Jabhat al-Nusra. By 2016, IS controlled 50-60% of the camp and surrounding neighbourhoods. IS eventually abandoned its remaining positions in southern Damascus, including Yarmouk, in 2018.

The prosecutor also discussed the difficulties encountered during the investigation. According to the prosecution, investigations into crimes committed by IS had shown that activists and other individuals who attempted to make crimes public were systematically threatened, detained or forced to leave the area. This was presented as part of the context in which evidence concerning IS and its activities in southern Damascus had to be collected.

Before discussing the individual evidence, the prosecution addressed the applicable legal framework. The first allegation concerned participation in IS as a terrorist organisation under Article 140 of the Dutch Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 1(4) of the International Crimes Act (WIM). The prosecution stated that the court had jurisdiction and referred to Article 1(4) of the International Crimes Act in conjunction with Article 140 of the Dutch Criminal Code. The prosecutor also addressed questions concerning leadership and the relationship between the defendant and other senior IS leaders, referring to previous Dutch case law, including the Vescher case and the judgment of the Court of Appeal in The Hague from 7 July 2026 (ECLI:NL:PHR:2026:290).

The prosecution also addressed the allegation concerning IS as a terrorist organisation with the objective of committing war crimes. It argued that the situation in Syria constituted a non-international armed conflict (NIAC). According to the prosecution, the necessary conditions were satisfied because there was sustained armed violence and the groups involved were sufficiently organised. The prosecutor also addressed the question of whether the defendant knew about the existence of the armed conflict, arguing that the position of the defendant could be relevant when determining knowledge.

A significant legal issue discussed during the hearing was the required nexus between the alleged crimes and the armed conflict. The defence had challenged whether such a connection existed. The prosecution therefore spent considerable time explaining why it believed the nexus requirement was satisfied. According to the prosecution, the central question was whether the armed conflict had played at least a substantial role in the way, purpose or circumstances in which the crimes were committed. The prosecutor referred to international and Dutch jurisprudence, arguing that criminal responsibility for war crimes is not limited to people physically fighting at the front or directly participating in hostilities.

The prosecution referred to several previous cases in support of this argument, including the Humble case and the Vescher case. In the Humble case, the court had considered crimes committed by IS against civilians and other non-combatants in the context of the armed conflict. The prosecution also referred to the ICC’s Al Hassan case and the interpretation of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The prosecutor argued that IS’s political and military objectives were closely connected and that its goal of expanding the caliphate could not be separated from its military activities. The prosecution therefore maintained that the alleged crimes were sufficiently connected to the conflict in Syria.

The prosecution then turned to the specific war crimes that it alleged formed part of IS’s objective. The first category concerned attacks on life and personal dignity, including killing and torture. The prosecution referred to Article 6(1)(a) of the International Crimes Act and argued that the victims were protected persons because they were not participating in hostilities. It also argued that humiliating and degrading treatment could constitute an attack on personal dignity. The prosecution referred to the Al Hassan case, in which the public nature of certain acts was considered relevant to the humiliation suffered by victims.

The second category concerned the passing and execution of sentences without prior judgment, as referred to in Article 6(1)(d) WIM. The prosecution argued that, contrary to the interpretation adopted by the court in the Shaffon case, this provision should not be limited to death sentences, but should also apply to other forms of punishment. In support of this interpretation, the prosecutor referred to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, Article 6 of Additional Protocol II, and Article 8(2)(c) of the Rome Statute, as well as the ICC’s Al Hassan judgment, the ICRC’s interpretation and the Dutch Merens case.

The prosecution further addressed differences and inconsistencies in the Dutch translations of the relevant provisions. In particular, the English term “passing of sentences” can refer to the imposition of a sentence, whereas the Dutch term “vonnis” may also refer to a judgment resulting in an acquittal or release. The prosecutor argued that this difference in terminology was not without legal significance. The wording concerning the “passing of sentences and carrying out of executions” was also discussed. According to the prosecution, “execution” should not necessarily be understood exclusively as the carrying out of death sentences, but could also be interpreted more broadly as the execution or enforcement of sentences. The prosecutor argued that this broader interpretation was supported by documents concerning the negotiations leading to the Geneva Conventions.

The third category concerned arbitrary detention. The prosecution relied on Article 7 of the International Crimes Act and described it as a provision covering violations of the laws and customs of war. It referred to previous Dutch cases, including Vescher and Merens, as well as the Kosovo Specialist Chambers. According to the prosecution, arbitrary detention forms part of customary international law, and the relevant victims had to be protected persons who were no longer participating in hostilities.

Evidence and Witness Reliability

The prosecution then discussed the evidence in the case. It described the case file as extensive:  a total of 4500 pages containing documents, reports, battlefield evidence, photographs, videos and witness statements. The prosecutor explained that the prosecution had not considered it appropriate to pursue specific individual war crimes on the basis of the available evidence, although the possibility of doing so at a later stage had not been excluded. The prosecution placed particular emphasis on objective evidence, arguing that this evidence independently supported the conclusion that the defendant had participated in IS as a terrorist organisation and had occupied a senior position within the organisation.

The prosecution also discussed the witness evidence. 27 witnesses had been heard by the police and 12 witnesses had been heard by the investigating judge, including anonymous and threatened witnesses. The prosecution addressed the statements of several witnesses, including AA, BA and BAM, and discussed their reliability.

With regard to AA, the prosecution noted that he was a documentary maker who had witnessed many of the events in Yarmouk and who had connections to a person belonging to one of the parties to the conflict. The prosecution argued that such connections were not unusual in the context of an armed conflict and did not automatically undermine his reliability, as the defence had argued.

The prosecution considered BA’s statements reliable and noted that he had been an activist opposed to the Syrian regime and had been arrested by IS. Although BA had never personally witnessed the defendant committing specific crimes, the prosecution argued that his statements were supported by objective evidence.

BAM had also previously given a statement to German police. According to the prosecution, there were no indications that BAM had exaggerated the defendant’s role. The prosecution also rejected the suggestion that BAM had attempted to minimise his own involvement, which was argued by the defence.

The prosecutor separately addressed the anonymous and threatened witnesses. The prosecution acknowledged that restrictions on the disclosure of their identities had limited the defence’s ability to exercise its right to question them. However, it argued that the investigating judge had acted within the legal framework and had taken appropriate measures to protect the witnesses. According to the Prosecution, the assessment of whether the trial had been fair should take into account the evidence and the compensatory procedural safeguards as a whole. The defence had been able to submit written questions and questions through the investigating judge. The prosecution therefore argued that there had been no violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights despite the limitations on cross-examination.

The prosecution also stated that it would not rely on certain witness statements because of inconsistencies, because witnesses could not be heard by the investigating judge, or because the defence had not been able to question them. Statements from family members were generally not relied upon, with the exception of the statement of the defendant’s wife. The prosecution argued that evidence from outside the formally charged period could nevertheless be relevant because participation in an organisation can continue to have evidential significance over time.

The Amni and the Defendant’s Alleged Role

The prosecution then turned to IS itself and its activities in southern Damascus. It stated that IS’s status as a terrorist organisation was not disputed and therefore did not require extensive discussion. The prosecution argued that IS in southern Damascus formed part of IS as a whole and shared its objective of expanding the caliphate. The fact that the alleged activities took place specifically in southern Damascus did not, in the prosecution’s view, change the nature of the organisation.

Particular attention was given to the Amni, which the prosecution described as an important part of IS’s structure. According to the prosecution, the Amni was involved in gathering intelligence, arresting and interrogating alleged spies, carrying out executions and operating detention facilities. The prosecutor argued that the Amni therefore played a decisive role in creating fear and maintaining IS’s control. Arrests could allegedly take place without an arrest warrant, and an accusation of espionage could result in execution. The prosecution further argued that the Amni occupied a prestigious position within IS and that an emir held a high position within its structure.

The prosecution argued that IS had the objective of committing war crimes, referring to public sources documenting executions of apostates, civilians, and minorities. It also relied on the Humble judgment, which established that IS aimed to kill protected persons, including through public executions intended to intimidate the population. Evidence and witness statements allegedly showed that killings occurred in Yarmouk and that material documenting them was publicly distributed.

The prosecution further referred to physical punishments imposed under IS’s interpretation of Sharia law, including amputations for theft and public flogging for drug use. It argued that public executions, cages for alleged apostates, and corporal punishment violated personal dignity, relying on the Al Hassan judgment, where public humiliation was recognised as relevant to such violations.

The prosecutor also referred to IS detention facilities and Sharia courts. An Amnesty International report cited by the prosecution indicated that detainees could face proceedings without formal charges, convictions, or fair trials. These proceedings were described as coercive and largely symbolic, sometimes lasting only minutes, with defendants effectively presumed guilty. Evidence allegedly showed that detainees had no access to lawyers and that sentences were often delivered orally.

The prosecution also addressed arbitrary detention, arguing that individuals were detained without proper legal procedures or legitimate grounds. Evidence concerned the detention of children, slavery and sexual slavery, and facilities operated by the Amni, where torture, mock executions, and executions allegedly occurred frequently. Journalists, activists, civilians who had fled, and those accused of being traitors or collaborators with the Free Syrian Army were allegedly systematically targeted.

Finally, the prosecution argued that the victims were protected persons because they were civilians or no longer participating in the conflict, and that the required nexus with the Syrian conflict was established. Referring to the Humble case, it argued that the nexus found there for killings and violations of personal dignity should also apply to the other alleged crimes. The prosecution characterised the climate of fear created by IS as part of its strategy to maintain control and expand its territory.

The central part of the prosecution’s case then concerned the defendant himself. According to the prosecution, the defendant’s name had been linked to the kunya in public sources, the SCM report and other investigative material. The prosecution discussed discrepancies concerning the date of the defendant’s marriage. The defendant had argued that he could not be the person referred to by the kunya because he had already been married in 2013, whereas other evidence indicated that his marriage took place in 2014. The prosecution argued that, regardless of this discrepancy, there was substantial additional evidence identifying him as the person associated with the kunya.

The prosecution referred in particular to photographs showing the defendant together with senior IS members. According to the prosecutor, the defendant recognised himself in the photographs and witnesses also identified him. The prosecution further referred to a video in which the defendant allegedly participated in an IS praise song. Documents concerning IS in southern Damascus allegedly indicated that the person using the kunya received money from IS. The prosecution therefore rejected the defendant’s explanation that another person with a similar kunya was responsible. According to the prosecution, its investigation had not found evidence linking the alternative individual to the relevant kunya.

The prosecution then argued that the defendant had not merely been an ordinary member of IS but had held a leadership position. The prosecutor pointed to his alleged contacts with senior IS figures and photographs and videos identifying him as an IS security agent. Witness statements allegedly placed him at detention centres and described him as the right-hand man of Abu Mujahid. The prosecution also referred to evidence that the defendant had been seen carrying a weapon and a suicide belt.

According to the prosecution, witnesses had seen the defendant in IS detention centres, where he allegedly gave orders to guards and may himself have been involved in interrogations and torture. The prosecution argued that there were no indications that his leadership position had ended when he left Yarmouk. The prosecution therefore characterised him as an important figure within IS and specifically as an emir of the Amni.

The prosecution also argued that the defendant must have known about IS’s activities and objectives. According to the prosecutor, IS committed serious crimes systematically and on a large scale, and the defendant allegedly maintained close relationships with senior members of the organisation. The prosecution argued that, given his alleged position and influence, he could not have been unaware of IS’s objectives.

The defendant’s presence in the conflict area and his own statements concerning the Syrian conflict and the groups involved were also presented as relevant. The prosecution rejected his continued denial and his claim of mistaken identity, noting that the latter had only been raised at a later stage in the proceedings.

The prosecution ultimately concluded that the charges had been proven to the required legal standard. It maintained that the defendant was a member of IS and that he had occupied a leadership position within the Amni throughout the relevant period.

Sentencing

The final part of the hearing concerned sentencing. The prosecution emphasised the seriousness of the alleged crimes and referred to the extensive violence committed by IS. According to the prosecutor, the Amni had played an instrumental role in these acts and the defendant, as its alleged emir, had occupied a position of significant responsibility within the organisation. The prosecution characterised IS as an organisation responsible for extremely serious crimes and argued that the defendant had joined it out of ideological conviction and had operated within its higher ranks.

The prosecution stressed that the defendant was not being held personally responsible for every individual crime committed by IS or the Amni. Rather, the prosecution argued that his alleged leadership role within the organisation was relevant to the offences with which he had been charged.

For the first offence, the prosecution referred to 6 years’ imprisonment as the starting point, with a statutory maximum of 8 years. For the second offence, the maximum was described as 30 years’ imprisonment or life imprisonment. The prosecution stated that the statutory maximum should be applied cautiously and took previous cases, including Perigold and Vescher, into consideration. It also took into account that the defendant had already spent approximately three and a half years in pre-trial detention. On that basis, the prosecution reduced its requested sentence by 6 months.

The prosecution ultimately requested a sentence of 17 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with credit for the time already spent in pre-trial detention.

Click here to view Arabic translation.

Summary of the Hearing

The first day of the substantive hearing in the Arkel case took place on 14 September in Rotterdam. The defendant was present and represented by counsel. The proceedings were livestreamed, and witnesses were referred to by their initials or assigned numbers to protect their privacy and safety. A witness located in Turkey could not be heard by the investigating judge. Although the defence did not waive the witness’s examination, both parties agreed that the substantive hearing should proceed, and the Court considered it unlikely that the witness could be heard in the foreseeable future.

The charges

The defendant is accused of holding a leadership role within IS between 1 February 2014 and 21 April 2018. He is charged with:

1. Participation as a leader in an organisation with the intent to commit international crimes, including violence to life and person, outrages upon personal dignity, and the passing of sentences and carrying out of executions without previous judgment; and 
2. Participation as a leader in an organisation aimed at committing terrorist offences.  

Examination by the Court

The Court began by discussing the defendant’s personal background. Originally from Yarmouk, he was arrested by the Syrian authorities in 2006 on suspicion of contacts with parties hostile to the regime and remained in detention for five years without ever being convicted. He stated that he was tortured and spent 100 days in solitary confinement, and that he continues to suffer health problems as a result. After his release in 2011, he participated in protests against the Syrian regime.He was later injured during a demonstration and during a bombardment of Yarmouk. He lived between Yarmouk and Yalda until 2015, when he moved to Al-Hajar al-Aswad after his wife became pregnant. 

The main part of the hearing focused on whether the defendant was the person identified by witnesses as an IS security official (Amni).

The judge showed various pictures and a video of the defendant. One of the pictures showed the defendant reading the Quran, taken by his sister in June/July 2011 at his parents’ home in Yarmouk, shortly after his release. The defendant later posted this picture on his Facebook. 

The investigation began following reports made to the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM), accompanied by the photograph of the defendant that had been posted on Facebook. During the investigation, the defendant was wiretapped, while the FBI obtained a data carrier from the conflict zone containing documents potentially linked to IS. 

Several witnesses described the defendant as an emir or security official involved in arrests, detention and executions, with some describing him as one of the founders of ISIS in the area. Several identified him from a photograph, while other accounts relied on hearsay or witnesses who had seen him only a few times or, in some cases, never in person. The defendant denied holding any position within IS and maintained that the allegations resulted from mistaken identity and false rumours spread by people seeking to discredit him. According to him, since around 2015 his photograph had been wrongly associated with another person. He stated that he was not a member of any armed group, although he sympathised with those opposing the Syrian regime.

The defendant stated that he had attempted at the time to have the rumour corrected through a family member. Asked by the Court about his daily activities, he indicated that during that period he was occupied, like other civilians, with obtaining food and water for his family. He said he was not a member of any armed group, but that he did sympathise with those opposing the regime. The Court observed that the witnesses had gone to considerable lengths in order to give their statements.

The Court confronted the defendant with a range of documentary and digital evidence. A video found on the data carrier showed him at a wedding where a song glorifying IS was sung. He argued that it was a traditional wedding song whose lyrics had been altered and that IS was popular at the time.

The Court also presented documents believed to originate from IS, including payroll records and a list of fighters containing an individual bearing the defendant’s name and assigned to a security function. The defendant disputed that the entry referred to him, pointing out that the individual was recorded as unmarried while he claimed to have already been married. The Court examined several conflicting sources concerning the date of his marriage but concluded that no clear picture could be established.

Other material included photographs of armed men, videos of armed groups, news reports, YouTube material and a Telegram message concerning a change of the Amni in the area. The defendant generally maintained that he was either present by coincidence or in a different capacity, that the material did not concern him, or that it reflected the same false rumours about his alleged role. He also challenged the reliability of several witnesses and alleged that one statement concerning his possession of a weapon had been incorrectly translated. His broader position was that some witnesses had falsely implicated him in order to deflect attention from their own conduct.

The Court then examined evidence concerning IS rules and its treatment of civilians. Witnesses described corporal punishment and other practices reportedly carried out in Yarmouk. The defendant acknowledged that IS publicly administered punishments and that these practices were widely known in the community, although he disputed some specific witness accounts, such as witness AA’s claim that smokers were held in cages. The defendant stated that although he had never seen the cages, it was possible they had been removed immediately after use.

A substantial part of the hearing concerned IS detention and interrogation facilities. Witnesses gave differing accounts of whether locations referred to as “0”, “3” and “4” were separate detention centres or the same facility. Several witnesses nevertheless placed the defendant in a position of authority over these locations, alleging that guards deferred to him and that he personally interrogated or mistreated detainees. One witness described being beaten with a cable and belt and subsequently with an iron rod and car tyre while the defendant was present and communicating with the interrogators. The defendant did not dispute that IS carried out torture and public executions but denied his own involvement and relied on what he considered inconsistencies between witness accounts.

The Court also examined testimony concerning numerous killings in Yarmouk. Witnesses generally attributed these killings to IS security officials, on the basis that ordinary civilians would not have had the authority to carry them out. The defendant maintained that several incidents had occurred before IS took control of the area in 2014, when Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups were present. He also argued that IS had no reason to carry out killings covertly, as the organisation openly arrested people and conducted public executions. On this basis, he attributed several specific killings, including those of an activist and ten aid workers, to groups operating in the area before IS.

Witnesses also testified about public executions. Regarding the execution of an 18- or 19-year-old man, one witness stated that the defendant had played a primary role and that his involvement was widely known, while another described a masked executioner from the intelligence service. The defendant relied on these differences to challenge the reliability of the allegations against him. 

Finally, witnesses described a roundabout where numerous executions allegedly took place. According to the testimony, severed heads of executed people were used to play football in an area under IS control allegedly led by the defendant. One witness stated that he had seen the defendant taking part. Another confirmed that the location fell within the defendant’s alleged sector but stated that he had not seen him participate. The defendant denied knowing about the incident. 

Questions from the Public Prosecution 

The prosecution questioned the defendant about the situation in the area, the reasons people were executed by IS, and the execution of one of his friends, who had been accused of spying for Hamas. It also asked why he considered it safe to remain in IS-controlled territory with his pregnant wife in 2015. The defendant replied that there was no reason for IS to harm him. When asked why he had not previously provided a fuller account of the ill-treatment he had personally suffered, he stated that he had not been asked about it and found it difficult to discuss.

The prosecution also challenged the defendant’s account of when he left the area. He maintained that he left at the end of March 2018, while the prosecution referred to WhatsApp messages and social media material suggesting that he remained there in April. 

Asked about his views on IS, the defendant drew a distinction between the organization’s ideology and the way it was put into practice. He stated repeatedly that he was not in a position to assess the ideology, since he considers himself a moderate Muslim and had little experience of the organization’s religious positions; what he could say was that its military activities had negative consequences for the country as a whole. The prosecution confronted him with this on several occasions, pointing out that he had lived in the area for years and had himself stated that he knew people were being tortured and executed there, and asking how he could then have no view of the organization. The defendant maintained that living in the area did not in itself give him sufficient knowledge to judge, and that he could not say whether IS members were extremists. Asked whether it was therefore possible that IS was in the right, he replied that this was not what he had said: in his view, there is a difference between the ideology and its implementation. He described the implementation as bad, referring, among other things, to what had happened to his friend, but said that he was unable to assess the ideology itself.

The prosecution further questioned him about contacts with senior IS figures. The defendant acknowledged attending meetings to listen but stated that these contacts predated 2014 and that he severed them after his brother was killed in September 2015. Finally, he was asked why his account of mistaken identity had only been fully developed at a later stage and why he used the term Dawla, the term IS used for itself. He maintained that he had denied the accusations from the time of his arrest and explained that using different terminology while living in IS-controlled territory could have been dangerous. 

Comments by the defense

At the end of the hearing, the defence highlighted elements it considered relevant to the reliability of the evidence, including inconsistencies in witness accounts and an instance in which a witness initially identified the defendant but withdrew the identification the following day. 

The hearings will continue on the 16th of September at 9.30.

Summary of the Hearing

The first day of the substantive hearing in the Arkel case took place in the Netherlands on 14 September in the District Court of Rotterdam. The Hague District Court has jurisdiction over war crimes cases, though the substantive hearings are held in Rotterdam.

The suspect was present and represented by counsel. The proceedings were also attended by two prosecutors and Arabic interpreters. 

The charges

The defendant is accused of holding a leadership role within IS between 1 February 2014 and 21 April 2018. The charges are: 

1. Participation as a leader in an organisation with the intent of committing international crimes, such as violence to life and person, outrages upon personal dignity, and the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment (attacks, assaults on personal dignity, carrying out punishments without a court judgment). 
2. Participation as a leader in an organisation that has as its aim the commission of terrorist offences.  

The court noted that the hearing was being livestreamed and that witnesses were referred to by their initials or assigned numbers to protect their privacy and safety.

A witness who is located in Turkey could not be heard by the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris). The defence did not waive the witness’s hearing, but wanted the substantive hearing to proceed regardless. The prosecution also wanted the hearing to proceed. The court did not deem it likely that the witness could be heard in the foreseeable future and decided to proceed with the case.

Examination by the Court

The court started the first hearing by discussing the written statement submitted by the defence. The defendant is from Yarmouk. His father is from Latakia (an area with many Alawites, though the father himself was Sunni Muslim) and his mother is Palestinian.                                         The defendant attended school in Yarmouk and studied English at a university in Damascus. His older brother died in the war after being conscripted. 

In 2006, the defendant was arrested on suspicion of contact with parties hostile to the Syrian regime. He was accused of being a spy partly because of his English studies at the University of Damascus and detained for 5 years. He was tortured, spent 100 days in solitary confinement, followed by collective detention. Some other detainees later joined al-Nusra and similar groups. He was released in 2011 without ever being convicted. After his release, he lost his civil and military rights. He suffers lasting health problems, including back issues, from this period. 

Besides the physical damage suffered during detention, the defendant stated he was wounded once in summer 2012 when the regime opened fire during a demonstration while he was out buying groceries, and again in 2013 during a bombardment in Yarmouk. 

The defendant participated in the protests against the Syrian regime in 2011. He lived alternately in Yarmouk and Yalda until 2015, when he moved to Al-Hajar al-Aswad after his wife became pregnant.

Following the discussion of the personal statement, a substantial part of the hearing was devoted to confronting the suspect with pictures, a video, and statements of witnesses. 

The judge showed various pictures and a video of the defendant. One of the pictures showed the defendant reading the Quran, taken by his sister in June/July 2011 at his parents’ home in Yarmouk, shortly after his release. He later posted this picture on his Facebook. 

The investigation into the accused was initiated based on reports from individuals to the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM). These individuals provided incriminating statements about the defendant, accompanied by the picture that was posted by the defendant on Facebook. During the investigation, the defendant was wiretapped. Furthermore, the FBI obtained a data carrier from the conflict zone that contains documents possibly linked to IS.

A video clip found on the data carrier shows the defendant at a wedding where a song glorifying IS was sung. The defendant argued it was a traditional wedding song whose lyrics had simply been altered. The court questioned why the defendant sang along to lyrics referencing the conquest of Rome and the founder of a terrorist organisation. The defendant responded that IS was popular at the time, many groups were not hostile toward the organisation, and even children took part in the festivities.

After reviewing this footage, the hearing was largely devoted to the question whether the defendant is the person referred to in the witness statements as the IS security official (Amni). The judge noted that several witnesses describe him in that role: as emir of the security service; as involved in arrests, detention and executions; and, according to some, as one of the founders of ISIS in the area. Several witnesses identified him from a photograph, while others rely on hearsay, having seen him only a few times or, in some cases, never in person.

The defendant denied this and maintained that the statements he gave before the investigating judge are accurate. He states that these were false rumours spread by people who wanted to discredit him. According to him, the case concerned a mistaken identity, whereby, since around 2015, his photograph has been wrongly associated with that of another person. He stated that he had attempted at the time to have the rumour corrected through a family member. Asked by the Court about his daily activities, he indicated that during that period he was occupied, like other civilians, with obtaining food and water for his family. He said he was not a member of any armed group, but that he did sympathise with those opposing the regime. The Court observed that the witnesses had gone to considerable lengths in order to give their statements.

The Court presented documents believed to originate from IS, including payroll records and a list of fighters containing an entry for a person bearing his name, described as unmarried and assigned to a security function. The defendant disputed that the entry refers to him, arguing that he was already married at the time.                                                                                                                                                                                    

The examination then moved to the specific date the defendant got married, on which the sources diverge: his own statement, the registration by the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), a ruling by a court in Damascus, the marriage certificate, and the varying statements of his wife (including those from an intercepted conversation) all provide different dates. The defendant explained that the registration took an irregular course because his civil rights had been withdrawn due to his detention, so that the marriage was only registered afterwards. The Court noted that no clear picture could be derived from this.

Subsequently, a series of photographs, videos and news articles was discussed: a photograph of armed men beside a flag, in which the defendant is the only one without a visible weapon; video footage of an armed group singing; news reports; YouTube material from 2017; and a Telegram message concerning a change of the Amni in the area in question. In relation to each of these, the defendant provided one of three explanations: that he was present by coincidence or in a different capacity; that the material did not concern him; or that it exemplified the false rumours circulating about him.

The defendant disputed the reliability of a number of witnesses and submitted that a passage in which he is said to speak about carrying a weapon has been translated incorrectly. He also stated as an example that one witness is unreliable because he later learned that this man had committed various offences and had a dislike of Palestinians, for which reason the defendant considered that he should not be believed. His position is that some of the incriminating information rests on false accusations by people seeking to deflect their own responsibility.

Witnesses testified extensively about IS’s rules of conduct and its treatment of civilians, including corporal punishment reportedly carried out in Yarmouk. The defendant acknowledged that IS was open and unashamed about administering punishments publicly, so that everyone in the community was aware of them, though he disputed specific details, such as witness AA’s claim that smokers were held in cages. The defendant stated that although he had never seen the cages, it was possible they had been removed immediately after use.

Considerable testimony concerned IS detention and interrogation sites. Accounts diverged: The defendant insisted that all the names (0,3, and 4) referred to the same location. Some witnesses described several distinct detention centres under the names 0, 3, and 4.                                            Several witnesses placed the defendant in a position of authority over these centres, alleging he personally interrogated and mistreated detainees and that guards deferred to him. One witness testified that the defendant held the position of the Amni, or security officer. 

A witness described being beaten with a cable and a belt and then taken to an office, where the defendant arrived and was addressed by name. According to the witness, an iron rod and a car tyre were used during the beating, while the defendant conversed with the interrogators throughout the interrogation. The defendant did not deny that IS carried out public executions and torture, though he broadly disputed his own involvement and pointed to what he called contradictions between witness accounts. 

Furthermore, witnesses gave accounts of numerous killings in Yarmouk, generally described as the work of the Amnis, since ordinary civilians were said to lack the standing to carry out such killings themselves. The defendant’s consistent position throughout the first day of the trial was that all of these incidents predated IS’s actual arrival in the area in 2014, when the territory was instead controlled by Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups, and that IS, in any case, did not need to kill covertly since IS was not hesitant to arrest people and carried out its executions openly. On this basis, he attributed several specific killings, including the killing of an activist and ten aid workers, to the groups in control in the period before IS’s arrival, rather than to IS.

Testimony further described public executions, targeting both opponents and civilians, typically carried out by a shot to the head, generally following a court ruling. Witnesses disagreed on some details of a particular execution of an 18- or 19-year-old man: one witness stated that the defendant played a primary role and that this was widely known, while another witness described a masked executioner from the intelligence service. The defendant highlighted the inconsistencies in witness statements relating to the execution of the young man. 

Finally, witnesses described a roundabout where numerous executions were said to have taken place. The severed heads of executed people were reportedly used to play football in an area under IS control led by the accused. One witness stated that he had seen the defendant taking part. Another witness acknowledged that this was indeed the accused’s sector but stated that he did not see the accused play football with the heads. The accused stated that he did not know about the incident.

Questions from the Public Prosecution 

The examination covered the situation in the area: the reasons why people were executed by IS, the execution of a friend of the defendant who had been accused of spying for Hamas, and the question of why, in 2015, he considered it safe to be in IS-controlled territory together with his pregnant wife. The defendant replied that there was no reason on the part of IS to harm him. Asked why he had not given a fuller account at an earlier stage of the ill-treatment he himself underwent, he replied that no questions had been put to him about it and that he finds it difficult to speak about it. He was also questioned about the moment he left the area. The defendant maintained that this was at the end of March 2018, whereas according to the prosecution, WhatsApp messages and social media indicate that he was still there in April.

Asked about his views on IS, the defendant drew a distinction between the organization’s ideology and the way it was put into practice. He stated repeatedly that he was not in a position to assess the ideology, since he considers himself a moderate Muslim and had little experience of the organization’s religious positions; what he could say was that its military activities had negative consequences for the country as a whole. The prosecution confronted him with this on several occasions, pointing out that he had lived in the area for years and had himself stated that he knew people were being tortured and executed there, and asking how he could then have no view of the organization. The defendant maintained that living in the area did not in itself give him sufficient knowledge to judge, and that he could not say whether IS members were extremists. Asked whether it was therefore possible that IS was in the right, he replied that this was not what he had said: in his view, there is a difference between the ideology and its implementation. He described the implementation as bad, referring, among other things, to what had happened to his friend, but said that he was unable to assess the ideology itself.

The defendant was further questioned about his contacts with senior IS figures. He stated that he attended meetings to listen, that these contacts dated back to before 2014, and that he severed contact after his brother was killed in September 2015.

Finally, the defendant was asked why he had only set out his position on the alleged mistaken identity at a later stage, and why he uses the term IS (Dawla) uses for itself. He replied that from the moment of his arrest he had taken the position that the accusations originated from that quarter, and that using different language in IS-controlled territory was dangerous.

Comments by the defense

At the end of the hearing, the defense raised several points from the case file, including a witness who initially identified the defendant with a degree of certainty and withdrew that identification the following day, statements concerning conditions inside and outside the prison, and statements concerning killings during the period covered by the charges.

The hearings will continue on the 16th of September at 9.30.

The seventh pre-trial hearing took place on September 11, 2025 at the District Court of Rotterdam. The defendant was not present but was represented by his counsel. The session was opened by the presiding judge, who began with the status of the investigation. The judge stated that a one-page supplement had been added to the case file. In addition, he listed who still needed to be heard as witnesses (the defendant will also still be heard). He also indicated that the Chamber of Counsel had decided that the appeal was granted, and that one day prior to the hearing the defendant had prepared a statement. An unofficial translation of this statement was available, which the judge briefly reviewed. The hearing mainly focused on questions from the defense lawyer, after which the further scheduling of the case was discussed.

The Court indicated that further witnesses are to be heard. The defendant himself will also be examined. In relation to the latter, defense counsel submitted that the records of the defendant’s statements given in Germany are required. Counsel argued that the defense must be afforded access to all documents relating to the defendant. She further noted that the timeframe will be tight, as the documents are expected to be transmitted only shortly before the examination scheduled to commence on 6 October 2025. In response, the public prosecutor (OM) stated that it would consider whether it might be possible to release at least part of the documents in advance.

In addition, the defense counsel submitted a primary request to the Court for the termination of the defendant’s pre-trial detention and, in the alternative, a request for the suspension of the defendant’s pre-trial detention. Defense counsel argued that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the ECHR. She submitted that there is still no clarity as to when the substantive hearing will take place, a concern that becomes more pressing every three months. She further stated that the defendant has already been in custody for a considerable period of time and that his family misses him greatly. His children are unable to maintain proper contact, and his detention prevents the maintenance of a normal relationship between father and child.

The public prosecutor responded to this request by submitting that the investigative grounds still exist, as does the ground of the shocked legal order (“geschokte rechtsorde”). According to the prosecutor, nothing has changed in the situation: there remain serious objections against the defendant, and the new documents have not altered this assessment. No special personal circumstances have been put forward that differ materially from those advanced in the previous request for suspension. Furthermore, the inability to see family members is, in view of the seriousness of the charges, insufficient. The prosecutor therefore objects to suspension and/or termination of the pre-trial detention.

After a short adjournment, the Court held that while it is mindful of the lengthy duration of the pre-trial detention, it is of the view that serious objections against the defendant still exist. The investigation is still ongoing and there is no specific reason to terminate or suspend the detention. According to the Court, the interests of criminal justice outweigh the personal interests, and therefore the request of defense counsel was denied.

The next pre-trial hearing is scheduled for 24 November 2025.

The sixth pre-trial hearing took place on June 17, 2025. The defendant, represented by counsel and assisted by an interpreter, was present. The session focused on the case’s planning and three motions filed by the defense: adding new evidence, conducting additional witness hearings and a site visit in Syria, and suspending pre-trial detention.

The court announced that the substantive hearing, initially planned for November 2025, would likely be delayed to early 2026 due to the complexity of the investigation and scheduling constraints. The prosecution confirmed it was in the process of obtaining relevant documents from a German case but noted delays in finalizing the witness list. The defense expressed concern over this delay, as it affects their preparation.

The defense requested the addition of a Dutch immigration interview, arguing it could undermine a witness’s credibility. The prosecution called it irrelevant and speculative. The court ultimately rejected this request.

Next, the defense again sought to hear witnesses in Syria (in person or remotely) and conduct a site visit. They cited prior cases in which alternative methods (e.g. social media outreach) had been used in countries like Afghanistan and Somalia. The prosecution opposed this, citing sovereignty concerns and the lack of legal cooperation with Syria. The court agreed with the prosecution and denied both the witness hearing and site visit requests.

The defense also argued for the suspension of pre-trial detention, citing weak evidence, inconsistent witness testimony, and the hardship experienced by the suspect’s family. They claimed there was no longer a risk of collusion and invoked ECHR case law on the excessive duration of detention. They proposed alternatives like house arrest.

The prosecution countered that the suspect faces serious charges, including a leadership role in IS’s internal security service (AMNI), and that several key witnesses still needed to be heard. Releasing the suspect, they argued, would damage public confidence in the justice system.

After a short adjournment, the court rejected all three defense motions. It found the immigration interview irrelevant, upheld the impossibility of investigation in Syria, and ruled that the ongoing investigation and seriousness of the charges justified continued pre-trial detention. The court concluded that the suspect’s release would undermine the “geschokte rechtsorde” (shocked legal order).

The next pre-trial hearing is set for 11 September 2025. A substantive hearing is not expected before early 2026.

A pre-trial hearing in the Arkel case took place at 10:00 AM at the Schiphol Judicial Complex, with the suspect, defense counsel, and an interpreter present.

The hearing focused mainly on two procedural matters: the ongoing investigation and the defense’s request to suspend the suspect’s pre-trial detention. The presiding judge also inquired about the status of the indictment. The prosecution indicated that the indictment would likely be amended following further witness testimonies, but only regarding the form of the suspect’s alleged participation, not the substance of the charges.

The investigating judge reported that several new documents had been added to the case file recently, including a memorandum summarizing outstanding investigative requests. Six additional witnesses remain under investigation, three have been located, two are presumed deceased, and one remains missing. The prosecution also plans to add a report describing a photograph of the ISIS office where the suspect allegedly worked. The defense requested an additional witness be heard. The court discussed German case files from a related investigation; the prosecution is actively working to obtain relevant witness testimony documents and assured the defense would have access once received.

The defense requested suspension of the suspect’s pre-trial detention, arguing that delays caused by outstanding investigations, such as witness hearings, a site visit in Syria, and international legal assistance requests, would likely postpone the substantive hearing originally scheduled for November 2025. Citing European Court of Human Rights case law, the defense argued that the suspect’s detention, which has lasted two and a half years, was becoming unreasonable. They stressed the personal toll on the suspect and his family, noting limited contact with his young son and the negative effects on his wife and daughter. They also argued there was no flight risk or risk of reoffending, given the context-specific nature of the alleged crimes, and that detention impeded case preparation due to prison restrictions.

The prosecution opposed the suspension, disputing the likelihood of hearing delays and noting diplomatic and legal hurdles, such as the lack of formal relations with Syrian authorities and unresponsiveness from Turkey, hampering the investigation. They acknowledged the suspect’s personal hardships but maintained these did not outweigh the legal grounds for detention. The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of the charges and the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation.

After a brief recess, the court ruled. It granted the defense’s request to hear an additional witness but denied the suspension of pre-trial detention. The court recognized the burden on the suspect and his family but stressed the complexity and seriousness of the case, the ongoing investigative needs, and the importance of preventing interference with the process. The court found that suspending detention could jeopardize these interests.

The next pre-trial hearing is scheduled for 17 June 2025, where the final charges will be addressed.

On the 3rd of February 2025 at 10:00 a.m., a procedural hearing in the Lech investigation took place at the Rotterdam District Court. The defendant was present. 

The prosecution submitted new documents and announced an expansion of the charges. These included membership in ISIS and the commission of international crimes such as murder, torture, and arbitrary detention. The prosecution stated that the case file was not yet complete, as several suspects still needed to be heard.

The defence referred to a letter submitted earlier and reiterated its request to investigate two witnesses who may already be deceased, asking that this be assigned to the investigating judge. The defence also requested access to investigation files from Germany relating to similar case facts, and argued that the rechter-commissaris should officially attempt to obtain these documents.

In addition, the defence submitted a request for the suspension of pre-trial detention. They highlighted that the defendant had now been in custody for two years under a strict regime in the terrorism unit in Vught. Personal circumstances were also discussed in detail, including the family’s financial difficulties, the psychological issues of the defendant’s daughter, and the fact that the defendant had not yet seen his newborn son. The defence cited a comparable case in which a suspect was released, and proposed alternatives such as electronic monitoring or nighttime house arrest.

The prosecution agreed to refer the witness matter to the rechter-commissaris and expressed willingness to consult German authorities regarding the requested files. However, they noted that such material would initially be made available for inspection only. On the issue of pre-trial detention, the prosecution strongly opposed release. While acknowledging the personal challenges, they argued that the seriousness of the charges, particularly participation in international crimes, must take precedence.

The court made the following decisions: the investigation would be referred to the rechter-commissaris to determine the availability of the two witnesses, and access to the German files was granted, with the prosecution tasked to facilitate this. The request to suspend pre-trial detention was denied, as the severity of the alleged offences outweighed the personal circumstances of the defendant.

The next pro forma hearing was scheduled for April 14, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., at the Schiphol Complex in Amsterdam. The court emphasised the importance of swift progress and instructed that the remaining investigations should be completed as soon as possible.

A pre-trial hearing was held on August 30, 2024, at the District Court of Rotterdam in the Arkel case, which involves allegations of international crimes. The accused was not present. Three judges, the defense counsel, and the prosecution attended.

The defense raised two main issues: the excessive duration of pre-trial detention, now over 1.5 years, and the use of allegedly unreliable evidence. Arguing that the investigation had not produced any direct link to the suspect and that no substantive hearing was scheduled, the defense requested the case be dismissed. They criticized the heavy reliance on anonymous and contradictory witness statements, which they described as gossip-like and possibly influenced by internal conflicts.

The defense submitted two investigative requests: hear a new witness to assess the reliability of key testimony, and request further verification from the FBI regarding documents allegedly found near Deir-ez-Zor, which, according to an expert, might be forged due to inconsistencies in language and date formats compared to verified ISIS documents. They argued that pursuing this would significantly prolong the investigation, further impacting the suspect and his family, and therefore requested acquittal.

The prosecution objected to all requests. They argued the defense’s claims were speculative and maintained that the investigation should conclude by the end of 2024. They emphasized the reliability of the documents, purportedly seized directly by the U.S. military, and stressed that there is no consistent “ISIS language,” making forgery claims unfounded. The prosecution also underscored the seriousness of the charges and the importance of continuing pre-trial detention.

After deliberation, the court denied all of the defense’s requests, including the motion to hear a new witness and the FBI inquiry, finding them insufficiently substantiated. The request to end pre-trial detention was also denied. The court acknowledged the complex nature of the investigation but required the case file to be completed by the end of 2024.

The next hearing is scheduled for November 13, 2024, at 10:15 a.m. in the District Court of Rotterdam.

Prosecutor Blom reported regarding the status of the investigation that the police investigation is not yet complete. In fact, several witnesses still need to be heard in the coming weeks. This is due to the fact that the police investigation is back in full swing after new information has been obtained regarding alleged interrogations by the suspect and subsequent torture in the context of his alleged position with ISIS.

This means there is still much investigation to be done. But the prosecution’s approach is still to have the final dossier ready by the end of the year at the latest, depending on circumstances.

Depending on the outcome of the current investigation, the indictment will be amended to include additional accusations next to the current one (membership in a terrorist/ criminal organization). The defense will likely have additional investigation requests as well.

A substantive hearing is not to be expected before the end of 2024, more likely early 2025.

During the pretrial hearing on 8th March 2024, the judge announced that this session would focus on adding new documents to the case file, namely anonymized witness statements by the defence. 

Firstly, the defence and prosecution discussed the ongoing investigation. The prosecutor sent an email to the parties, clarifying the direction of investigation. It stated that the investigation will most likely be centred around the allegations of participation in a criminal organisation and executions as war crimes and crimes against humanity, and will rely heavily on witness testimonies. The investigation will likely take six more months to finalise the case file, which will include using specific investigation methods, such as voice recognition technology. 

Next, defence lawyer Michiel Pestman explained the defence motion to add anonymized witness statements to the case file. He argued that in general witnesses must be protected throughout the investigation, when they are in Syria, where they could be brought in difficulty and danger when they testify. He added that the defense took their statements anonymously to guarantee a measure of personal safety for these witnesses. The prosecutor noted that it does work with anonymous witnesses, but that they do not reside in Syria. The defence then stressed that there must be transparency regarding the identities of witnesses, while simultaneously it must be ensured that their names are not disclosed to the public, in order to ensure the witnesses’ safety. The prosecution contested that if the witnesses reside in Syria, they are likely facing security threats as they are living under an authoritarian regime. Their testimonies should not be added to the case file as the witnesses’ security can never be fully guaranteed. In response, the defence stated that each party’s right to find and question witnesses and present testimonies must absolutely be ensured to guarantee the fundamental defence rights to a fair trial. Therefore, the prosecutors and judges need to cooperate to solve this issue and to allow for ways for the defence to find witnesses to present the defence’s case. The defence then offered to have those anonymised witness testimonies added to the file but that they should only be accessible by the prosecution and not added to the general case file. 

Additionally, the defense argued that the prosecutors too easily quote the impossibility to violate Syria’s sovereignty and the lack of a mutual legal assistance agreement with Syria, as reasons for excluding witnesses who are in Syria. Defence lawyer Pestman cited previous cases involving similar witness situations with regard to Rwanda, Afghanistan and Somalia, and that in these situations the parties found ways to creatively solve the issue of witness protection and security. In Afghanistan for example, the prosecutor issued an ad-hoc legal assistance agreement in the embassy of Kabul. In Somalia, the defense traveled to Mogadishu and recorded testimonies on video, so that the investigating judge and prosecutor could revise them. The defence then suggested a solution, namely to involve an expert to come up with a solution, an independent person that can advise how to deal with (defence) witnesses who are located in Syria. This was no formal request yet, but rather just a sharing of ideas and discussion. The defence lawyer would even already have someone in mind. 

The judge was irritated by the latter, questioning this expert’s independence if the defence already had them in mind, and stated that this discussion should be postponed, as this session was dedicated to discussing the additional testimony documents for the case file. The defence noted that it is primarily their responsibility to ensure the security of their witnesses. In response, the prosecutor highlighted the witnesses’ vulnerability due to the fact that both the regime and the political opposition might both be threatening them. The prosecutor stressed the need for extreme caution when involving witnesses in Syria, but also agreed to assist in finding a solution to this complex issue and question. However, the prosecutor clearly rejected the request to add anonymized statements to be accessed only by the prosecution for several reasons. Firstly, judges would not have access to these statements, rendering them irrelevant for the case as the (pretrial) judges could not test their evidentiary value. Additionally, the limited anonymization cannot guarantee the personal security of witnesses, particularly those located in Syria. The defense’s argument for equality of arms was countered by the fact that neither the prosecutor nor the police have unrestricted access to witnesses in Syria. 

The judges left the courtroom to consider the arguments for and against the defence motion to add these anonymized witness statements, including from witnesses in Syria. In conclusion, the court decided that there is a fundamental legal need for the documents to be added in the interest of fair trial principles, even when there is a major concern about the personal security of the witnesses. However, the defence was directed to be more careful with anonymising statements. Additionally, the court directed that any statements involving witness names by either prosecution or defence, may be discussed only behind closed doors to guarantee the safety of the witnesses and avoid identity leaks. 

The police and prosecutor plan to have their investigation file complete by the end of this year, after which it can be presented to the court and the trial date can be set, likely for the first quarter of 2025. The accused remains in pre-trial detention with the next pre-trial hearing scheduled for 4 June 2024 at 10am at the District Court of Rotterdam.