11th February 2026 marked the final day of the appeals hearing in the case against Hasna A. Present at the hearing were representatives of the prosecution, the representative of the injured party, defence counsel and the suspect. Once again, several Yezidi survivors attended the hearing in person.

This session was devoted to the defence’s closing arguments. The defence requested acquittal on all charges, including the charge of enslavement of Z. 

The defence began by placing considerable emphasis on the suspect’s personal circumstances, particularly her mild intellectual disability. It argued that this condition influenced certain decisions she made at the time. Counsel portrayed the suspect as naïve and impulsive, with a limited capacity to anticipate the consequences of her actions. By way of illustration, it was noted that she travelled to Syria without adequate preparation and without fully reflecting on the potential implications. According to the defence, her intellectual disability also increased her vulnerability to radicalisation. Counsel further contended that the Public Prosecution Service has insufficiently accounted for these findings and maintained that the suspect’s statements should be assessed from her own perspective at the relevant time.

IS women
The defence subsequently referred to academic literature on women who joined ISIS. Counsel emphasised how propaganda was used to attract women to the group’s territory, the roles typically assigned to them there, and the extent to which departure was realistically possible. The literature commonly distinguishes between “naïve followers” (often described as insecure individuals seeking direction), idealistic political activists, and ideologically committed adherents. Identified motivations include religious or political convictions, as well as more personal drivers such as the pursuit of romanticised adventure (for example, marrying a perceived fighter or hero). According to the defence, this broader scholarly context supports the defendant’s account and situates her within the category of a religiously motivated naïve follower.

Participation in a terrorist organisation / preparatory acts
The defence then turned to the specific charges. Counsel first contested whether the suspect’s conduct met the legal threshold for “membership” of a terrorist organisation or amounted to preparatory acts prior to her travel to territory controlled by ISIS.

According to counsel, one might argue that by travelling to ISIS-controlled territory the defendant numerically strengthened ISIS; however, she did not participate in a way that advanced the organization’s objectives. The defence maintained that Hasna A. was primarily engaged in domestic responsibilities, including caring for the household and her children, and later for her injured husband. Her acts and conduct, it was argued, were too remote from the realisation of ISIS’s organisational aims to meet the relevant legal threshold.

Moreover, counsel argued that relevant case law indicates that merely travelling abroad and seeking to deepen one’s religious knowledge of Islam are, in themselves, insufficient to qualify as preparatory acts. In this context, counsel addressed the semantics of the term ‘Caliphate’ and the relationship between the concepts of Islam and ISIS, arguing that the suspect was not seeking affiliating with ISIS, but rather pursuing religious freedom. On that basis, the defence maintained that the suspect’s conduct did not meet the legal threshold required to establish criminal preparation. The defence further maintained that any incriminating or apparently contradictory witness statements had either been misinterpreted or were dishonest, and that old expressions of sympathy for ISIS in the suspect’s Facebook-posts should not be interpreted literally. 

Placing and leaving her minor child in a helpless situation
Regarding the allegation that the suspect brought and kept her child in a helpless situation, counsel acknowledged that the defendant placed her son in Syria. However, she argued that, as was reportedly the case for other ISIS-affiliated women, leaving was not a realistic option thereafter. According to the defence, the defendant did express a desire to leave, but any attempt to escape would have posed serious risks to both her own safety and that of her child. Counsel referred to indications — including statements allegedly conveyed to her father — suggesting that she wished to depart from the so-called caliphate. Therefore, there was no (conditional) intent to leave her son in a helpless situation.

Enslavement of Z.
With respect to Hasna A.’s involvement in the enslavement of Z., a Yezidi woman who was required to clean, perform household work, prepare food, and care for a child, the defence argued that the defendant’s involvement was insufficient to support a conviction for slavery as a crime against humanity. Counsel contended that the suspect lacked knowledge of a widespread or systematic attack against the Yezidi population and that her conduct therefore could not be regarded as part of such an attack. In any event, the acts described were, according to the defence, insufficient to constitute slavery. The defense argued that the activities did not take place in the suspects own home, and that Z. was already in that household before and after the suspect stayed there. According to this line of argument, Hasna A.’s presence therefore did not materially alter the situation. According to counsel, Z. had freedom of movement and could in principle have escaped but did not do so because she feared never seeing her son again. Ultimately, she did escape. The defence further stressed that the suspect was not the person responsible for deciding whether Z. could leave the house. More broadly, it was argued that decision-making authority generally rested with the male head of the household, and that it was therefore not Hasna A.’s position to comment on or intervene in another person’s household.

Reliability of statements
A substantial component of the defence’s plea centred on contesting the credibility of the witness statements, particularly those provided by Z. Counsel explained the workings of human memory and outlined how the Court should assess the reliability and probative value of such evidence. The defence argued that the interview methods employed by other institutions at the time, specifically UNITAD, were flawed or suggestive, that Z.’s statements lacked sufficient detail, and that the passage of time raised questions about the reliability of her memories and possible external influence. On that basis, the defence submitted that the prosecution’s evidentiary framework, which relied largely on witness testimony, could not be legally sustained.

Civil claims
The defence further argued that the civil claims for damages should be declared inadmissible. Despite extensive earlier efforts to clarify the applicability of Syrian law, the relevant legal framework remains unclear, and further clarification would, according to the defence, in any event place a disproportionate burden on the criminal proceedings.

Subsidiarily, the defense counsel argued that there is no causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the damage suffered by Z. Since Ms. Z. had been residing in that household both before and after the suspect’s stay, the defence argued that Hasna A.’s presence did not have a material effect on the situation. Even more subsidiarily, counsel contended that the alleged harm was insufficiently substantiated to meet the legal requirements for liability. 

Diminished responsibility – sentencing
Finally, the defence requested that the court formally recognize that the defendant has diminished criminal responsibility. Her mild intellectual disability played a role throughout; such a disability is not something one acquires, but something one is. Additional disorders have also been diagnosed, including borderline personality disorder. Counsel referred to a recent probation report, which briefly indicated that the defendant no longer holds extremist views. According to her lawyer, the defendant is working hard on herself and acknowledges that travelling to Syria was “a grave and foolish mistake” with irreversible consequences for herself and her children: consequences she will carry for the rest of her life. The possibility of revocation of her Dutch nationality would, according to the probation service and the defence, be disastrous. The defendant needs support and would benefit from assistance.

The victims’ counsel and the public prosecutors were then given the opportunity to respond to the defence arguments, which they contested in detail.

The judgment is scheduled for 25 March 2026 at 10:00 a.m.

It is worth noting that throughout the proceedings, the public prosecutors visibly demonstrated attentiveness to the Yezidi community. They explicitly acknowledged the suffering inflicted upon this community and were receptive to questions and concerns from those present, an approach warmly welcomed by the Nuhanovic Foundation and one that deserves to be adopted as standard practice.  

The second day of the appeal hearing focused on the victim’s right to address the Court, the injured party’s claim, and the Public Prosecution Service’s closing arguments.

At the start of the session, Z’s legal counsel first addressed the Court on her behalf. She emphasised that the crimes committed  against the Yazidi community, including enslavement, have been internationally recognised as genocide and crimes against humanity. The prosecution of such crimes in national courts remains essential, particularly in light of instability in northeastern Syria and the risk that ISIS detainees may evade accountability. The victim’s counsel underlined that universal jurisdiction cases such as this one are of great importance to the Yazidi community, which continues to rely on international justice mechanisms. She further explained that participation in the proceedings has been emotionally burdensome for her client. While Z. values the opportunity to seek justice, the trial confronts her again with the trauma of her captivity and the conduct of the suspect.

Statement of Z.
Z. subsequently addressed the Court through a recorded video message. She recalled the attack on the Yazidi community in August 2014 and her subsequent captivity in Syria. She described being separated from her children and held in the house of an ISIS fighter, where she was forced to perform domestic labour.

Referring to the suspect, Z. stated that the defendant had also used her as a slave. She recalled being required to cook, clean, and care for the suspect’s son. She described repeatedly asking to use a telephone to contact her children, but without success. Z. expressed hope that justice would be served and that those responsible would be held accountable.

The Prosecution’s Closing Arguments
The Public Prosecution Service (OM) then began its closing arguments. The prosecution opened by recalling the broader context of ISIS’ systematic attack on the Yazidi population in Sinjar in August 2014. Approximately 7,000 Yazidi women and girls were abducted and enslaved; to this day, more than 2,000 remain missing. The prosecution emphasised that the case concerning Z. cannot be assessed in isolation from this wider campaign of persecution. ISIS developed rules and structures regulating the enslavement, trade and control of Yazidi women, who were treated as property and deprived of autonomy. According to the prosecution, these practices constitute slavery as a crime against humanity under international law.

With regard to the charges against the defendant, the prosecution argued that she knowingly travelled to ISIS territory after having familiarised herself with ISIS ideology and propaganda. The prosecution referred to social media activity, witness statements, and chat messages to argue that she embraced and disseminated extremist ideology prior to her departure. Once in Syria, she married an ISIS fighter, lived within ISIS-controlled areas, and received financial support from ISIS.

On the charge of participation in a terrorist organisation, the prosecution submitted that her conduct, including establishing herself in the so-called Caliphate, maintaining a household with an ISIS fighter, and actively expressing support for ISIS ideology, contributed to the organisation’s objectives.

Regarding slavery as a crime against humanity, the OM argued that the defendant exercised powers attaching to the right of ownership over Z. by giving her domestic orders, requiring her to perform unpaid labour, and making use of her services while knowing she was being held as a slave. The defendant also forced her to pray five times a day. According to the prosecution, this conduct formed part of the broader, systematic attack against the Yazidi population and therefore qualifies as a crime against humanity. The prosecutors emphasized that Z. was afraid of the suspect and feared that refusing would result in her being taken to an even worse situation. Performing household tasks, caring for children, and praying constituted an exercise of powers attaching to the right of ownership. The essence of slavery lies in the fact that a person is treated as property, as an object. This means that anyone who makes use of that person, thereby exercising powers attaching to the right of ownership, may be held just as responsible as the original “owner”. The defendant did so by using Z. and treating her as her own property.

According to Z., the suspect knew two Yazidis from the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, the suspect reportedly had discussions about wearing a niqab. She allegedly expressed that she was glad they had been captured, claiming that Yazidis were infidels.

All statements made by Z. are corroborated by other Yazidi survivors, S. (also a victim in Hasna A.’s first-instance trial), M., as well as by the suspect herself. Besides, while the suspect asserts that Z.’s statements are false, the prosecution notes that Z.’s claims are nuanced and remain grounded in the events as they occurred. If she were being untruthful, she might have chosen to exaggerate her statement. 

Therefore the Prosecution aligns itself with the Court’s assessment that the defendant participated in the offence. Z. regarded herself as being in a position of servitude toward the defendant. The defendant acknowledged that she knew Z. had been made a slave and she issued instructions on her own initiative. Moreover, even after she ceased residing in the house where Z. lived, Z. attended the residence of the defendant every other day to carry out domestic duties.

Finally, the prosecution also addressed the charge of placing and leaving her minor son in a helpless situation by bringing him to a war zone and failing to remove him from that environment until February 2019. The prosecution noted that the act of taking the child to Syria is time-barred. However, it argued that the offence of leaving him in a helpless situation constituted a continuing offence that lasted until February 2019 and is therefore not time-barred.

Sentencing demand
In light of the seriousness of the offences (participation in a terrorist organisation, slavery as a crime against humanity, and leaving a minor child in a helpless situation) the Public Prosecution Service requested a fully unconditional prison sentence of ten years, minus time already served. They further requested that the Court award €30,000 in damages to Z., plus statutory interest.

The first day of the appeal hearing in the case against Hasna A. took place in Schiphol Judicial Complex on Monday February 9, at 10:00 AM.

The suspect was present and represented by counsel. A victims rights lawyer was also in attendance, as well as interpreters and many Yazidi survivors and other interested parties. 

The presiding judge of the Hague Appeals Court first outlined the agenda for this session, as well as the upcoming days. This session focused on the substantive examination of the facts. In this session, the Court was to question the suspect on three main themes: her departure to Syria in 2015, her stay in ISIS-controlled territory, and her contact with the Yazidi victim, Z. During the proceedings, the suspect answered all questions from the Court and the Public Prosecution, although not always with substantive clarity.

The Court first questioned the suspect about the period leading up to her departure to ISIS-controlled territory in February 2015. She described herself at the time as socially isolated, facing financial hardship, and caring for a young son with special needs. According to her statements, she increasingly experienced a sense of alienation in the Netherlands after adopting more conservative religious clothing and habits. She further stated that she believed it was religiously obligatory for her, as a Muslim, to travel to the proclaimed Caliphate.

She acknowledged that, prior to departure, she had followed and posted ISIS-related content online, but maintained that she did this in order to ‘avoid suspicion’ upon arrival in the Caliphate. When questioned about specific violent propaganda, including execution videos, the suspect confirmed that she had seen such material but said it did not deter her from leaving the Netherlands. She maintained that she thought she could live there as a civilian without being involved in violence.

The Court continued to question the suspect about her awareness of the risks of residing in Syria, particularly because she brought her four-year-old son to the conflict zone. She admitted knowing that Syria was unsafe but characterised her decision as naïve and impulsive, reiterating her belief that she could live as a civilian, having nothing to do with any violence. 

Further, incriminating witness statements and other evidence suggesting that the suspect had expressed support for ISIS prior to her departure were discussed. Hasna A. disputed the witness statement, stating that she does not remember having endorsed ISIS publicly, that conversations between her and the witnesses did not occur, and that her words must have been twisted. She further maintained that she has no recollection of any other public expressions of support, including allegedly using a supportive text as her phone background or endorsing the ISIS attacks following Charlie Hebdo.

The second part of the hearing concerned her stay in Syria and Iraq between 2015 and 2019. According to the evidence, the suspect was placed in a women’s house (a ‘madafa’) upon arrival and soon married a Moroccan ISIS fighter, with whom she had three children. The suspect stated that she had no knowledge of this man’s identity beyond his nationality and ISIS-name, either before marrying him or after their divorce. 

She later acknowledged that she understood he was with ISIS, but claimed not to know details of his specific role. She acknowledged that her husband possessed firearms and that she, too, sometimes carried a weapon when leaving the house, allegedly at his instruction and ‘for protection against bad people’. However, she maintained that she, as a woman, had limited influence within the marriage overall. After their divorce in 2017, the suspect stated that she was dependent on ISIS-provided goods for the care of her children, but did not receive any financial compensation. 

The Court also addressed messages the suspect had sent to family members in the Netherlands. The suspect appeared positive about life in the Caliphate and encouraged relatives to join her. In her defence, the suspect stated that these messages did not reflect how she truly felt, that certain messages were written under pressure, and that she feared her husband might monitor her communications. 

The final part of the day focused on the contact between the suspect and Z., a Yazidi woman who was held in slavery by the man in whose house the suspect resided for a period of time. Hasna A. confirmed that she stayed in a house where Z. was present for several weeks. Eventually, she acknowledged that she understood Z. was being held there against her will and that she was aware that Yazidi women were enslaved by ISIS. She confirmed that Z. performed extensive domestic work in shared areas of the house. 

When asked how she felt about this, the suspect stated that she did not feel uncomfortable with the work Z. was performing, as she was not the one giving her orders, and that she refrained from intervening out of fear of reprisals. While denying that she gave Z. orders or forced her to work, she accepted that she benefited from the domestic situation. She denied expressing support for ISIS ideology in Z’s presence.

Finally, the Court confronted the suspect with discrepancies between her statements and other witness testimonies. During the trial the suspect answered the questions of the Court, although not always with substantive clarity. Throughout the hearing, it was notable that the suspect generally adopted a largely denying stance in her responses. When confronted with incriminating witness statements or specific messages, she frequently stated that she could not remember the conversations in question or suggested that her words had been misinterpreted. She denied having talked about her support for ISIS prior to her departure in school, despite multiple witnesses describing her as outspoken and firm in discussions. When presented with quotations attributed to her, she repeatedly responded that she did not recall making such remarks or that they were inaccurate. In addition, she consistently emphasised her position as a woman within ISIS-controlled territory, stating on multiple occasions that she “had nothing to say,” was required to obey orders, and acted out of fear, which, according to her, prevented her from intervening in certain situations.

The final part of the hearing addressed the suspect’s personal circumstances. Psychological assessments indicate that at the time of the offences she displayed traits of influenceability, impulsiveness and limited critical thinking skills. Although no current extremist ideology has been identified and she states that she has distanced herself from ISIS, experts assess that some degree of vulnerability to influence remains. Long-term psychological guidance has therefore been recommended to mitigate the risk of reoffending. The suspect stated that she meets weekly with a psychologist, is open to theological counselling.

The hearing will continue on the 10th February 2026 with victim statements and the closing arguments of the Public Prosecution Service.

On the morning of August 20, 2025, a brief pre-trial hearing was held in the appeal case against Hasna A. The suspect was not present.

The Presiding Judge opened the session by asking whether the defense, the prosecution, or the victims’ counsel had any motions concerning pre-trial detention or other matters. As none were raised, the Judge proceeded to note some issues that are on the agenda for the next pre-trial hearing, which will include the possibility of live-streaming the substantive hearing and the victims’ claims.

The next pre-trial hearing is expected to take place on November 11, 2025.

On 9 July, the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) of The Hague in Rotterdam held a preliminary hearing in the Hasna A. case – the first Dutch prosecution for crimes committed against the Yazidi community in Syria.

The next hearing is scheduled for 20 August at 11:00, while the substantive trial is tentatively set to take place in February 2026.

The Court has invited injured parties to submit their written claims by 15 September. The defence and prosecution will each have 6 weeks to respond. All submissions should be shared with the other parties involved.

Substantive trial livestream 
During the hearing, the victims’ legal team requested the court to live-stream the February proceedings, considering the large amount of interest of the case by the victim community and larger interested community. The Nuhanovic Foundation welcomes this request and will be formally sending a letter to the Public Prosecution Service and court in order to support this request.

A similar request was also made in the first-instance trial which allowed (Yazidi) communities in the region to follow the hearing live and in their own language – Kurmanji – through simultaneous interpretation and public broadcast. We will now work to ensure that this is again made possible, so that those most affected can meaningfully access and engage with the justice process.