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.
Disclaimer
This document does not constitute an official court record; rather, it is a summary prepared in collaboration with the Nuhanovic Foundation, based on field notes gathered by its representatives during the court hearings. Please note that this translation is unofficial, published for informational purposes only, and should not be considered an authoritative legal document.
