ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:2963

Gerechtshof Den Haag · 11-09-2024 · zaaknummer 22-002037-21 vertaling

Inhoudsindicatie

Investigation 26Humble. The accused is charged with - in brief - the following offences: 1. Co-perpetration to participation in a terrorist organisation and an organisation whose intent it is to commit war crimes, namely IS. 2. Co-perpetration to training to commit terrorist offences. 3 and 4. Incitement and dissemination for the purpose of incitement to commit a terrorist offence or offences to prepare or facilitate a terrorist offence, as well as the incitement and dissemination for the purpose of incitement to commit (a) war crime(s), i.e. outrages upon personal dignity. The Court of Appeal interprets this part of the indictment to mean that the war crime being incited must therefore consist of other persons, just as the accused is charged with under Count 5, posting or sharing messages/videos/images in a digital manner, thereby committing outrages upon the personal dignity of persons protected by war law. 5. Disseminating videos (and posting a message to one of the videos), which are official publications of IS, in a Telegram group with 80 like-minded members who widely shared IS imagery glorifying and promoting horrific violence against dissenters. This was charged as co-perpetration to the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity. P. Making means (sums of money) available to [person 1] and [person 2] in violation of the laws and regulations referred to in the indictment. The national Dutch Court of Appeal in The Hague acquits the accused of the charge under Count 5 since from the specific conduct of the accused it does not follow that there have been 'outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment' within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph 1 under c WIM, although these actions are highly reprehensible and the accused's conduct testifies to a disrespectful attitude towards the deceased victims. Therefore, the Court of Appeal does not need to discuss the Nexus. The Court of Appeal convicts the accused in respect of the charge under Count 1. The accused shared messages in several Telegram groups, such as Greenb1rds. These groups support the media strategy of IS. Given her knowledge of the conflict and the armed struggle as well as her active participation in the chats on Telegram, the accused must have known about them. The content of these messages includes lectures by radical speakers, exhortations to contribute financially to the armed struggle and calls to participate in the armed struggle. By disseminating these messages, the accused deliberately supported IS's media strategy, which was aimed at carrying out propaganda for the armed struggle waged by IS in Syria - and so with the organisation itself. She thus contributed to IS. The Court of Appeal convicts in respect of the charge under Count 2. In the period to which the charge pertains, the accused was a supporter of a radical Islamist ideology and supported the armed jihad waged by IS. The accused engaged in gathering knowledge and information via IS-affiliated social media channels and/or media platforms about IS's latest propaganda material. In so doing, she acquired knowledge and/or provided intelligence about, inter alia, killing infidels, carrying out attacks, making explosives (such as lead azide and TATP) and a bomb belt. From the external manifestations of her actions, the Court of Appeal deduced, inter alia, that the accused had the intention to train in committing terrorist offences. The Court of Appeal convicts in respect of the charges under Counts 3 and 4 for incitement to commit terrorist offences but acquits the accused insofar as these offences relate to incitement to commit war crimes. The Court of Appeal convicts in respect of the intention variant charged under P (colourless intention) as the accused stated that she transferred the money to [person 1] and [person 2]. The accused, after compensation for exceeding the reasonable time limit, is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 48 months, with credit for the time spent in pre-trial detention. In addition, the Court of Appeal imposes the maximised Detention under a Forensic Psychiatric Order with compulsory treatment by the state on the accused aimed at behavioural influence or liberty restriction within the meaning of Article 38z of the Criminal Code.

Rechters

In deze uitspraak zijn geen namen van rechters gepubliceerd.

Advocaten

In deze uitspraak zijn geen advocaten of gemachtigden met naam genoemd.

Gemachtigden en juristen in deze zaak

In deze uitspraak zijn geen gemachtigden of juristen met naam genoemd.