5th June’s appeal hearing in the case against the defendant focused on the defendant’s alleged participation in ISIS, the occupation of homes belonging to displaced civilians, and threats made against two journalists.The second day of proceedings opened with the public prosecutor presenting their requisitor to the court.

Throughout the hearing, the prosecution emphasised the broader impact of ISIS rule on civilians in Syria. According to the prosecution, the case is not only about the defendant’s individual conduct, but also about recognising the harms suffered by people who lost their homes, belongings, and security as a result of ISIS and affiliated groups.

A central issue on appeal concerns allegations of pillage as a war crime. The prosecution argued that the defendant lived in homes and used property that had previously belonged to civilians who were forced to flee areas controlled by ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. The prosecution argued that the seizure and redistribution of homes formed part of a wider system through which armed groups consolidated power and displaced local populations. It was a deliberate policy through which ISIS consolidated territorial control and instilled fear among civilian populations. The prosecutor described how witnesses had told how members of ethnic and religious minorities, including Kurds, were ordered via mosque announcements to leave their homes within 72 hours or face death. One witness returned to find his home entirely emptied of its contents. Goods taken from these homes were stored in cellars and redistributed across ISIS-controlled territory. In other homes, pots still containing food and personal belongings such as mattresses and children’s slippers had been left behind, as was the case in one of the houses the defendant was living in.

The prosecution linked the allegations of pillage as a war crime to charges of money laundering involving property derived from conflict-related crimes, arguing that the use and circulation of seized homes and goods formed part of the same system of appropriation and concealment of unlawfully obtained property. The prosecution included money laundering as a subsidiary charge alongside pillage, so that if the court did not find sufficient evidence for pillage as a war crime, the same conduct could still be prosecuted on those grounds. The prosecution argued that the defendant and her husband had joint control over the homes and their contents, pointing to the fact that she consistently used the word “we” when describing decisions made about the property. Her explanation that goods had been received as gifts or purchased legitimately was dismissed as implausible, the prosecution noted that she herself had expressed surprise at receiving so much for free, yet never questioned where it came from.

The defence disputed that the defendant knowingly occupied unlawfully seized property or that she was aware of its alleged criminal origin. According to the defence, she had little control over housing arrangements and was largely dependent on her husbands and the authorities controlling the territory.

The hearing also addressed threats directed at two journalists who have joined the proceedings as injured parties. The lawyer representing the journalists emphasised the fear and psychological impact caused by the threats and requested compensation on behalf of her clients. The impact of the threats extended well beyond the moment they were received: neither journalist has been able to practise their profession in the same way since. The threats, sent via social media accounts linked to the defendant and framed within the context of ISIS’s documented violence against journalists, generated a level of fear that fundamentally altered how they work. Counsel further argued that this harm was not limited to the individuals targeted, but contributed to a broader effect on press freedom and public life. Besides, the prosecution argued that threats sent through social media accounts linked to the defendant must be understood in the context of ISIS’s violence against journalists.

The defence maintained that it has not been established that the defendant personally wrote the threatening messages, arguing that her communications were heavily influenced and controlled by her husband.

The parties further disagreed on the extent of the defendant’s involvement in ISIS. The prosecution argued that she actively supported the organisation and its objectives, while the defence portrayed her as a vulnerable young woman who was manipulated, controlled, and abused by her husband.

The prosecution requested a prison sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 10 days, taking into account the 1,5 years already spent in detention in Turkey, as well as a three-year probation period, contact bans in relation to the journalists, and a community service order. The defence opposed any further imprisonment and pointed to the defendant’s personal development and participation in treatment programmes since her return to the Netherlands.

In her final statement, the defendant addressed the Court directly. She reflected on the years of proceedings, expressed a wish to take responsibility for her actions, and offered apologies to the journalists for the fear they experienced. She also addressed the allegations concerning homes and property, stating that if the homes had belonged to displaced civilians, she offered her sincere apologies.

The Court announced that the proceedings will continue on 9 July 2026, when the investigation is expected to be formally closed and judgment delivered.

PART 1 OF HEARING

Today, the Hague Court of Appeal held the first substantive hearing in the appeal proceedings against Xaviera S. The hearing focused on the case file, the claims of the injured parties, and the exercise of victims’ speaking rights. The next hearing is scheduled for Friday 5 June, during which the parties will present their closing arguments, followed by replies, rejoinders, and final statements. The Court indicated that judgment is expected during the first half of July.

At the outset of the hearing, the Advocate-General presented a summary of the charges before the Court. The case concerns allegations of participation in ISIS in Syria and Iraq, preparation of terrorist offences, and two counts of making terrorist threats. A separate charge relating to pillage as a war crime previously resulted in an acquittal. Now charged in conjunction with money laundering, the charge of pillage remains part of the appeal proceedings. The Court also addressed the position of the injured parties in relation to the threat allegations.

The defence disputes the findings relating to participation in ISIS and preparation of terrorist offences. Although the defendant also appealed the convictions concerning the threats, it was noted that she had not originally intended to challenge those findings but followed the Public Prosecutor’s appeal.

A procedural issue remains regarding documents relating to a Turkish conviction. Despite previous requests, the prosecution has not yet obtained the relevant material. The defence argued that the proceedings have now lasted approximately six and a half years and emphasised that the defendant has rebuilt her life in the Netherlands, now lives with a new partner, and has become a mother again. While acknowledging the potential relevance of the Turkish documents, the defence questioned whether further delay would be justified.

The Court subsequently heard the defendant’s account of her journey to Syria and her experiences there. The questioning focused on her conversion to Islam in August 2013, her preparations for travelling to Syria, and her marriage by telephone to her first husband, in January 2014.

According to the defendant, the marriage was primarily a practical necessity, as travelling to Syria as an unmarried woman was not possible. She stated that at the time she was searching for purpose and a sense of identity. Following her conversion to Islam, she came to believe that Syria would offer the environment in which she could find both.

When asked about life under ISIS, the defendant described a reality that differed significantly from her expectations. She told the Court that she failed to find the peace she had been seeking and instead lost her sense of self. She characterised the environment as one in which personal autonomy was largely absent, explaining that individuals were expected to follow instructions without question. Looking back, she stated that she does not understand why she chose to travel to a war zone.

A significant portion of the hearing concerned the defendant’s relationships with two men alleged to have been affiliated with ISIS. Regarding her first husband, the defendant stated that she assumed he was involved with ISIS once they arrived in Raqqa. She described him as holding a leadership role within the organisation and acknowledged that he worked at checkpoints and supervised others. However, she maintained that she never directly asked him about the nature of his activities and therefore could not say with certainty what role he played.

The Court also examined the defendant’s second marriage. The defendant acknowledged that his name appeared in an ISIS marriage register and assumed that he was affiliated with the organisation, although she maintained that he was not actively fighting when she met him.

The Court further questioned the defendant about statements she made during her time in Syria expressing support for the idea that Muslims should live in an Islamic state. Referring to a WhatsApp conversation with her mother from May 2017, the presiding judge asked whether these views reflected support for ISIS. The defendant acknowledged that they did, but repeatedly stated that she no longer fully understands how she thought during that period.

The hearing also revisited the role and activities of her first husband. According to earlier statements, he initially worked at ISIS checkpoints before later assuming more senior responsibilities. The defendant acknowledged that he received financial support and that ISIS provided allowances based on the number of wives a member had. When confronted with earlier statements about his operational activities, including planning drone attacks after being wounded, the defendant stated that she could no longer remember making those remarks.

The Court devoted considerable attention to two threats that form part of the indictment. The first involved a threatening message via Twitter directed at a Dutch journalist, accompanied by photographs of identification documents and a firearm. The defendant stated that she published the message through her social media account under pressure from her husband and feared physical violence if she refused. She denied having any personal intention to threaten the victim and stated that she now recognises the fear such actions would have caused.

The second threat concerned a Facebook post directed at a Dutch journalist, accompanied by a photograph of an AK-47 assault rifle. The defendant maintained that the message had been posted by her husband, although the Court noted that the wording resembled her own writing style. While she acknowledged being aware of the post at the time, she denied drafting it herself.

Several social media posts expressing support for martyrdom and ISIS ideology were also discussed. The defendant repeatedly stated that she could not remember posting the messages, although she accepted that the accounts belonged to her and acknowledged that the content was consistent with the beliefs she held at the time. The presiding judge observed that some of the messages could reasonably be interpreted as encouraging others to join or support ISIS.

The hearing further addressed a report prepared by the Netherlands Institute for Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (NIFP/NTA). Defence counsel reiterated concerns previously raised regarding the accuracy of certain passages. The defendant maintained that some of her statements had been interpreted too broadly or had resulted from leading questions posed during the assessment.

Finally, the Court revisited the allegations relating to houses occupied by the defendant in Syria. The prosecution questioned her about earlier statements indicating that some properties appeared to have been vacated abruptly, with personal belongings still left behind. The defendant stated that she had not reflected at the time on whether the houses might have belonged to displaced residents and only later considered the possibility that the properties may have been unlawfully appropriated.

She maintained that any involvement in the acquisition or allocation of the houses rested entirely with her first husband, and that she had no involvement in, or knowledge of, the process through which the properties were obtained. According to the defendant, she simply accompanied him and arrived at houses that were already empty. She stated that she never witnessed residents being removed from their homes and was unaware of how the properties came into the possession of ISIS or her husband.

When asked whether she ever suspected that the houses had been obtained illegally, the defendant replied that she largely accepted the circumstances around her without question. She described herself as having completely submitted to her husband’s authority. The Advocate-General concluded this line of questioning by asking whether the defendant was effectively describing a situation of coercion or compulsion.

Hague Court of Appeal Considers Groundbreaking Cumulative Charging in International Crimes Case

On 11 November at 14:00, the Hague Court of Appeal held a pre-trial hearing in the appeal proceedings against Xaviera S. The suspect was not present but was represented by counsel. A lawyer representing the victims also attended the session.

The primary purpose of the hearing was to consider a proposed amendment to the formal charges against the suspect, as requested by the Prosecutor’s Office.

Advocate-General Veldhuis presented the Public Prosecutor’s proposal to add a new charge to the indictment. This charge concerns an ordinary offence under Dutch criminal law — known as a commune delict — which, under Article 1(4) of the International Crimes Act (Wet Internationale Misdrijven – WIM), can be treated as an international crime when it is closely connected to one.

In addition to the existing charge of pillage (for which the suspect was acquitted at first instance), the Prosecutor’s Office now seeks to add a charge of money laundering, specifically the laundering of property obtained through pillage. According to the prosecution, the suspect used and lived in houses in Syria that had been taken from their rightful owners.

In essence, the prosecution argues that by using these looted properties, the suspect not only benefited from the crime of pillage but also committed money laundering connected to that war crime.

This could be a legal first for the Netherlands: the case would mark the first time that pillage has been charged together with a cumulative ordinary crime of money laundering. There is no known precedent here of pursuing such a combination, making this a potentially groundbreaking development in international criminal jurisprudence for the Netherlands.

On 26 April 2024, the District Court of The Hague issued its judgment in the case against Xaviera S.

The Court found insufficient evidence to support the charge of war crimes (pillaging). It ruled that it could not be established that the houses in which the suspect had lived had been unlawfully seized by ISIL, or that she had knowingly contributed to such acts. She was therefore acquitted of this charge.

However, the Court found her guilty of:

• Membership of a terrorist organization (ISIL);

• Preparation of terrorist crimes; and

• Threatening two Dutch journalists through online statements.

For these offences, the Court sentenced Xaviera S. to 860 days of imprisonment, of which 720 days were suspended under probationary conditions, which meant that she did not have to serve additional prison time beyond what she had already spent in detention.

In determining the sentence, the Court emphasized several mitigating factors: her progress in psychosocial treatment and rehabilitation, as well as the overly long duration of the proceedings.

In addition to the prison sentence, Xaviera S. was sentenced to 480 hours of community service for the threats made against the two journalists. The Court declared the journalists’ compensation claims inadmissible.

Because of her acquittal for the war crime of pillaging and the inadmissibility of the compensation claims, the Public Prosecution Service lodged an appeal against the Court’s verdict.