The first day of the trial focused mainly on Hasna A.’s motivations and actions regarding her trip to Syria in 2015. Hasna explained that, due to a difficult childhood and personal problems, she decided to practice Islam more rigorously in 2014 and seek a place where she could live peacefully following Islamic rules. She chose Syria, despite being aware of ISIS’s atrocities, claiming she had no intention of actively participating in their crimes.

The judges highlighted some contradictions in her story, asking why she had posted a photo on Facebook holding an AK-47 despite claiming she didn’t want to get involved. Hasna responded that she was confused and feared being suspected as a spy by ISIS, so she tried to convince them of her loyalty. She also justified sending extremist messages and images to her relatives in the Netherlands, stating that she was threatened by her ex-husband.

Furthermore, she was asked why she brought her autistic son to a war zone. Hasna admitted she hadn’t considered it, stating there were no schools for him, and she would take care of him herself. She also described her marriage to a Moroccan ISIS fighter, explaining that she married him only to survive, but their relationship ended in divorce due to threats and abuse and that she wasn’t aware about his daily activities

Regarding the accusations from Z. and S., Hasna claimed she didn’t want to treat the two Yezidi women, as the men did but was unaware of how they were treated since she wasn’t present during those moments. She said she was too afraid to interfere, fearing for her safety. Hasna denied calling Yezidis apostates or forcing them to pray, and claimed she knew little about Yezidis before traveling to Syria, despite widespread news reports about their treatment by ISIS. She was shocked when a Yezidi was brought to her home but followed her ex-husband’s orders to stay quiet.

The interrogation ended with a review of her difficult childhood, intellectual disability, and personality disorder, which made her vulnerable to extremist influence. The need for psychological and religious counseling was also discussed.

The second day of the hearing focused on the testimony of Z. and S., presented by their lawyers. Both women testified that they were enslaved and subjected to physical and psychological abuse while living with ISIS fighters. They described how Hasna implicitly approved their enslavement and never acted to help them, despite being fully aware of their situation.

Z.’s lawyer highlighted the profound psychological impact of being separated from her children, accusing Hasna of being cruel and indifferent to her pain. Z. also claimed that Hasna never allowed her to contact her children and caused the death of two of her daughters by refusing to help.

For S, the most important thing is to achieve justice and for the defendant to be prosecuted for the crimes she committed against her and others. After the ISIS attack in August 2024, S was taken to Abu Abdullah. She has been physically and mentally abused and severely traumatized. S asserts that the defendant was happy about what happened to the Yezidis and believed that S. and Z. deserved to be enslaved due to their faith.

After this, the defendant speaks. While H. claims to find the situation terrible, she shows no remorse, firmly dismissing the witness statements as false, refusing to acknowledge any responsibility for the suffering inflicted.

The Public Prosecutor then analyzed Hasna’s responsibility within the broader context of the 2014 Yezidi genocide, explaining how foreign women who joined ISIS, including Hasna, played a key role in supporting the organization by maintaining household duties and raising children according to jihadist principles. The prosecutor emphasized that, although Hasna did not participate directly in combat, her knowing involvement in ISIS and active support of the caliphate made her responsible for crimes against humanity, including the enslavement of Z. and S.

The prosecution outlined slavery as a crime against humanity, focusing on ISIS’s 2014 attack on the Yezidi community in Sinjar, where many were killed or enslaved. Yezidi women were subjected to abuse, forced into domestic labour, and sold as slaves to ISIS fighters, often under the orders of ISIS women. The prosecution emphasized that slavery involves treating a person as property, depriving them of autonomy, even without physical confinement.

The defendant is accused of co-perpetrating slavery by forcing Z to perform household tasks under duress, with no option to refuse. The prosecution found Hasna’s denials implausible, asserting that her actions were part of a systematic attack on the Yezidi population, making her guilty of co-perpetrating slavery. S also endured forced labor, restricted freedom, and threats of beheading if she tried to escape. The prosecution argues that the defendant’s actions toward S can be proven using “linkage evidence,” where the testimonies of Z and S reinforce each other. The prosecution identifies a clear modus operandi in the defendant’s behavior, with significant similarities between the accounts of Z and S. H. must therefore also be found guilty of slavery towards S.

Claims of victims:
On behalf of Z, a compensation of €30,000 is being sought. On behalf of S, a compensation of €25,000 is being sought. The prosecution concludes that it has been thoroughly substantiated that the claims are not time-barred and that the amount of compensation is sufficiently justified. These are crimes of such a nature that psychological harm is presumed. The prosecution states that the claims should be granted in full.

Sentence demand:
The prosecutor placed significant importance on the seriousness of the offenses and the consequences for the victims and called for an 8-year prison sentence, stating that Hasna cannot be seen merely as a victim of circumstances, but as an active participant in the terrorist organization. The defendant’s apology is viewed by the by the prosecution as primarily focused on the consequences for herself and her children, rather than her role within IS or the atrocities committed against the Yezidi community.

The third and final day of Hasna A.’s trial focused on the defense’s final arguments and the Public Prosecutor’s closing statement. This was a crucial phase, where both sides aimed to solidify their positions before the court’s final judgment.

Hasna’s defence team acknowledged that she acted wrongfully and deserved punishment, but emphasized that she was also a victim of circumstances. The lawyers highlighted her mental vulnerability, pointing out her intellectual disabilities and personality disorder, which made her susceptible to ISIS’s extremist influence. These conditions, they argued, should be considered as mitigating factors in determining her sentence.

The defence strongly contested the charges of slavery. They argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Hasna had direct control over Z. and S. or that she forced them to perform domestic work. They stressed that, even though Z. and S. stayed at Hasna’s house, they had keys to the home, suggesting that they were not physically imprisoned or entirely deprived of freedom. Additionally, they noted that Z. and S. were significantly older than Hasna, which they claimed limited Hasna’s ability to exert any psychological or physical control over them.

The defence also downplayed Hasna’s role within ISIS, arguing that while she joined the terrorist group, she was not a committed militant. Although she had sought information about ISIS before traveling to Syria, the defence maintained that Hasna never fully internalized the group’s extremist ideologies, and her involvement was more out of fear and coercion rather than ideological conviction.

The defence requested the court to reduce the prison sentence proposed by the prosecution, arguing that Hasna’s actual involvement with ISIS was limited and that, once in Syria, her ability to act independently was severely constrained. They also contested the compensation claims brought by the victims, Z. and S., asserting that the psychological and physical harm they suffered was mainly due to the abuse inflicted by ISIS men, not directly by Hasna.

Lastly, the defence pointed out that a conviction for slavery would lead to Hasna being stripped of her Dutch citizenship, making her ineligible for government aid or medical care, which would be devastating for someone with her mental limitations.

The Public Prosecutor responded by rejecting most of the defence’s claims. It was emphasized that, regardless of Hasna’s age or mental vulnerability, the psychological control she had over Z. and S. was evident. Although the victims had access to a key, they were living in conditions of forced slavery, with no real freedom of movement or choice. The prosecutor reiterated that, even if Hasna did not have direct control over the women, her participation in the household and support of ISIS made her complicit in the crimes.

The prosecution argued that Hasna implicitly approved the system of slavery enforced by ISIS, contributing significantly to the victims’ suffering. Even if she did not hold a leadership role, simply being part of the system and benefiting from it made her responsible for crimes against humanity.

The Public Prosecutor stood firm on their request for an eight-year prison sentence for Hasna, recognizing her mental health issues but stating that this did not absolve her of responsibility for the crimes. They also requested full compensation for Z. (€30,000) and S. (€25,000), arguing that the psychological damage resulting from slavery is implicit and that the compensation is fully justified.

The prosecution concluded by emphasizing the importance of holding Hasna accountable not just for the victims, but also for society as a whole. They highlighted the gravity of the genocide against the Yezidi community and reiterated that this trial also serves as a message that those responsible for ISIS’s atrocities will be brought to justice.

The Court found the defendant guilty on four counts:

• slavery as a crime against humanity related to the enslavement of a Yazidi woman;
• membership of a terrorist organisation (ISIS);
• participation and promotion of terrorist crimes;
• endangerment of her underage son by taking him with her to the so-called ‘caliphate’.

The Court sentenced the defendant to 10 years of imprisonment, exceeding the 8-year sentence requested by the Prosecutor. 

In its reasoning, the Court underscored the grave nature of the charges, particularly the conviction for slavery as a crime against humanity, recognizing the systematic exploitation and abuse suffered by the Yazidi community under ISIS.

The Court determined that the defendant’s membership of ISIS is unarguable, and her conscious decision to join ISIS also amounts to a promotion of the terrorist activities committed by ISIS, which is reflected in her conviction on the second count.

Additionally, the defendant was also found guilty of slavery as a crime against humanity. In its verdict, the Court found that the defendant knowingly contributed to the continued enslavement of a Yazidi woman (referred to as Z.) as she allowed her enslavement to persist despite being fully aware of the atrocities committed against Z and the larger Yazidi community by ISIS. The Court emphasized that slavery as a crime against humanity ranks among the most serious international crimes, which warranted a sentence higher than the Prosecutor’s request. The Court acquitted Hasna A. of the second charge of slavery related to the Yazidi woman (referred to as S.) due to inconsistent statements provided by the defendant. The Court found that the contradictions in her accounts created reasonable doubt, and as a result, there was insufficient evidence to conclusively prove her involvement in the enslavement of S.

Finally, the Court also found the defendant guilty of endangering her underage son by travelling to a war zone in Syria and exposing him to bombings and shellings, leading to adverse physical and mental effects for the child.