14 October 2024 | Schiphol Judicial Complex, Badhoevedorp, the Netherlands
Yesterday marked the first day of the substantive hearings in the Hasna A. case, a landmark trial which is the first case in which an individual is being prosecuted in the Netherlands for crimes committed against the Yazidi community. This case underscores the international commitment to seek justice for victims of mass atrocities and reinforces the role of national courts in addressing international crimes.
The Accused is a 33 year-old Dutch national from Hengelo named Hasna A. (H.), one of twelve Dutch women who were repatriated from detention camps in Northern Syria in late 2022, where they had been held following the fall of its so-called ‘caliphate.’ She is being charged with slavery as a crime against humanity, relating to enslavement of two Yazidi women (Z. & S.), and is also facing charges of membership of the terrorist organisation ISIS and for allegedly endangering her underaged son.
During the first day of the substantive hearings on October 14th 2024, the judges questioned H. about her reasons for travelling to Syria in 2015. She explained that she had a difficult childhood, was in debt, and faced many problems. Feeling depressed, she decided in 2014 to practise Islam, dress accordingly, and seek a place where she would be accepted. She was searching for an escape, hoping to find peace and avoid being bothered by others.
When asked why she chose Syria instead of Morocco, her country of origin, H. said she had no clear idea of what she would do in Morocco. She chose Syria in mid-2015, believing it would allow her to quietly build her own life. Although she knew what was happening in Syria and was aware of ISIS’s actions, she insisted she had no intention of participating in their atrocities or becoming involved in ISIS’s crimes.
The judge then asked why, despite knowing about the atrocities and claiming not to want to be involved, she posted a photo of herself with an AK-47 on Facebook. H. responded that she was confused and was not thinking clearly. She wanted to avoid suspicion from ISIS, fearing they might see her as a spy or a threat, so she tried to convince them she genuinely wanted to join the caliphate. Similarly, she justified sending extremist texts and photos of her children in ISIS outfits to relatives in the Netherlands, claiming her ex-husband monitored her phone and threatened her if she disobeyed.
H. stated that she supports Sharia law because she is Muslim. When the judge questioned how she could claim to oppose the atrocities while knowing such punishments are part of Sharia, she responded that she supported Sharia but didn’t need to witness the punishments.
H. was also criticised for taking her autistic four-year-old son to ISIS-controlled territory in 2015. When asked if a war zone was suitable for a child, she admitted she hadn’t thought about it. Regarding his education and care, she said school wasn’t an option for him anyway, and she would handle his needs herself.
H. explained that after arriving in Syria, she felt trapped without a partner as she couldn’t go outside without one, so she decided to marry and have more children. She married a Moroccan IS fighter whom she barely knew. She claimed to have no knowledge of his daily activities and stated that he neglected and threatened her, leading to their eventual divorce. H. expressed that she wanted to return to the Netherlands soon after she arrived in Syria.
In response to witness statements from Z. and S., H. denied all allegations. She claimed Z. and S. were never at her house, and she never gave them orders. Even during a two-week stay at Abu Achmed’s house, where Z. also lived, H said she cleaned her own room, cooked, and washed by herself. H. dismissed Z.’s claim that she didn’t help with her infant son as serious accusations, stating she always did her own housework.
H. said she barely communicated with Z. and S., as they didn’t speak English, and she didn’t speak Arabic. She couldn’t recall Z. asking her to call her son, and she didn’t know anything about Z.’s son. Z. allegedly had a key to Abu Achmed’s house and was free to come and go. H. and Z. even went to the market together.
During interrogation, H. admitted she knew Z. and S. were being held against their will at the men’s house but insisted she never saw them being mistreated. She claimed that Z. and S. never discussed their situation with her, although she did try to talk to Z. at times.
H. argued that she, as a wife, was also under pressure from her ex-husband. She allegedly helped Z. and S. cook at their husbands’ house when the men ate together. She mentioned that at several Friday night dinners, she did more cooking than Z. and S. H. stressed that she did not consider herself superior to the Yazidi women but was aware they were treated as slaves.
H. claimed she did not want to treat Z. and S. the way the men did. She said she didn’t know how the men treated the women since she wasn’t present. When asked why she didn’t talk to Z. and S. about it when they were alone, H. said she was too afraid to interfere, fearing for her own safety.
H. firmly denied accusations that she called Yazidis apostates or forced Z. and S. to pray. She also claimed to know little about Yazidis before travelling to Syria in 2015, despite the prosecution highlighting the widespread news reports about ISIS’s treatment of the Yazidi community.
H. added that she didn’t expect to encounter a Yazidi in Syria and was shocked when someone was brought into her home against their will. Unsure how to respond, she followed her ex-husband’s instructions to stay quiet and not interfere, though she admitted wanting to help but not knowing how.
The interrogation on the first day of the substantive trial ended with a review of H.’s childhood and expert assessments of her personality. It was noted that she had faced severe personal difficulties, has an intellectual disability, and suffers from a personality disorder, making her vulnerable to extremist influence. The need for psychological and religious counselling was also touched upon.
The next hearings in the Hasna A. case will take place at the Schiphol Judicial Complex (JCS) on the 16th of October, which will include the victims’ statements, with the last day of the trial taking place on the 17th of October 2024. The Nuhanovic Foundation and Yazidi Legal Network will continue to provide updates as the case moves forward.
Click here to read FAQs about the Hasna A. case.
For press inquiries, please contact:
Raghav Sarma
Communications Manager
raghav@nuhanovicfoundation.org
