For almost twelve years, the Yazidi community has been searching for justice.
Much has been written about the need for accountability for the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) crimes [read box]. Far less attention has been paid to visibility, and to whether survivors can actually witness that justice taking place. Proceedings take place far away, in languages they do not understand, in countries they will never visit.
This raises a broader question: what responsibility do judicial institutions bear for ensuring that such trials are not only conducted but seen by the communities most affected?
Recent practice in the Netherlands, notably in the Hasna Aarab trial, suggests that geographical distance is not insurmountable.
Fourteen universal jurisdiction cases
For Yazidi survivors, the only meaningful avenue for accountability so far has been universal jurisdiction trials in Europe.
According to monitoring conducted by Yazda, there have so far been nine cases in Germany, including three convictions for genocide and one ongoing case in Munich. There has been one case in the Netherlands, as well as proceedings in Sweden, Belgium, and Kosovo. In total, this amounts to fourteen cases over nearly twelve years, across five countries.
A new trial is set to open in absentia on Monday 16 March, before the Paris Assize Court, against French national Sabri Essid – the first genocide trial in France concerning ISIL crimes against the Yazidi community. Essid, presumed dead in Syria, is charged with genocide and crimes against humanity, against Yazidi women and children between 2014 and 2016.
For legal experts, these cases demonstrate that universal jurisdiction can work. They provide judicial recognition of crimes against Yazidis. Yet, the growing number of cases has not resolved a central problem: for many survivors, these proceedings remain largely out of sight.
Outreach: the responsibility of states
Civil society organisations such as Yazda have tried to bridge this gap by monitoring cases and publishing updates in accessible languages.
However, civil society cannot replace the responsibility of states. When states choose to exercise universal jurisdiction, they assume not only the power to prosecute but also the public nature of trials which is a fundamental principle of the administration of justice. States exercising universal jurisdiction should therefore adopt minimum outreach standards.
Otherwise, a paradox emerges: Justice is happening, but the people most affected often do not know it. The issue is therefore no longer only accountability, but also visibility. Justice that exists, but cannot be seen or followed, risks losing its meaning.
From courtroom to community
The Aarab trial that opened in 2023 in the Netherlands, offers a different approach.
In December 2024, the District Court of The Hague convicted the Dutch citizen who had joined ISIL in Syria, for the enslavement of a Yazidi woman as a crime against humanity.
Alongside the legal proceedings, and for the first time in a trial related to crimes against Yazidis, efforts were made to bring the case closer to the affected community.
Hearings before both the District Court and the Appeals Court of The Hague were filmed and made accessible remotely through secure links shared by civil society organisations with survivors and community members. Remote access was granted on an individual registration basis, allowing the court to retain oversight of participants. The District Court also provided remote access to the pronouncement of its judgment in December 2024, and the Appeals Court has announced it will do the same for its judgment that is expected in March 2026.
These semi-public video-streams allowed the court to balance transparency with the presumption of innocence and privacy concerns. Cameras showed only professional participants, including judges, lawyers, clerks and prosecutors, and not the defendant or the witnesses; viewers were strictly instructed not to take photographs or record the hearings.
Interpretation was provided into Kurmanji (a Kurdish dialect). While many Yazidi survivors speak the Shingali dialect, a mix of Kurmanji and Arabic, qualified interpreters in that specific language are difficult to find, and Kurmanji was therefore used as the closest available option.
To complement this, and to ensure the proceedings were understood at community level,Yazda organised two in-person community screenings at its offices in Duhok and Sinjar: the first in December 2024 during the trial hearings in first instances, and the second in February 2026 during the appeal hearings. Around eighty survivors in total attended the two events, including relatives of a witness in the case.
For many, it was the first time in over a decade that they were able to witness justice in action.
Participants expressed confusion about legal procedures, sentencing standards, and the absence of penalties such as the death sentence, which exists in Iraq. Some felt the ten-year sentence imposed on the accused by The Hague District Court was too lenient, reflecting broader frustrations about the limited number of prosecutions in front of the scale of crimes.
These reactions underscored the importance of tailored outreach with local civil society organisations.
A handful of survivors were also able to travel to the Netherlands to attend the hearings in person, some of them with travel support provided by The Nuhanovic Foundation. Yazidi media were also present, helping to relay information back to the community.
These efforts did not resolve all challenges. Access remained limited. But the approach marked a clear departure from previous cases in Europe. For once, survivors could see the courtroom, hear the arguments, and follow the outcome of a case that concerned them directly.
Access as the next step
The Aarab case shows that practical steps to improve accessibility are available, including remote viewing, interpretation, structured outreach and cooperation with community organisations. In practice, Dutch courts are increasingly willing to allow for remote access. As noted by Brechtje Vossenberg, a lawyer who represented the survivors in the case, such access is increasingly offered by the Dutch courts, in proceedings with clear international dimension. Remote access can also be facilitated in proceedings that have broad national impact or heightened public interest, she notes, such as in the MH-17 case or, more recently in a case involving a human smuggling network with significant interest for the Eritrean diaspora. In such cases, Vossenberg adds, the balance of interests underpinning a decision to allow for remote access not only involves the interest of the accused, but also those of the participating victims and the broader community affected by the facts at issue in the case.
Germany has also begun to move in this direction. Its 2024 reform of the law on international crimes, adopted after criticism that affected communities had only limited access to trials, strengthened victims’ rights and enabled courts to authorise recordings and broader interpretation, although these measures remain discretionary in practice.
Taken together, these experiences point to a familiar gap: what is often missing is not technical capacity, but early institutional attention and planning. In fact, the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted court activity worldwide but also accelerated the judiciary’s familiarity with remote tools, leaving many courts better technically equipped than before.
Paris Assize Court not ready yet
Against this backdrop, the forthcoming Yazidi trial in Paris offers a timely opportunity to put these lessons into practice. French judicial authorities can still build meaningful visibility into the proceedings from the outset. While French law restricts the public dissemination of filmed criminal hearings, remote access tools can offer a distinct and workable alternative. In Dutch practice, livestream access is treated as an extension of the courtroom: viewers must register individually and are strictly prohibited from recording the proceedings, just as if they were physically present. Arguably, the Paris court could facilitate real time audio access or structured live reporting in Shingali or Kurmanji, provide timely translated summaries of key hearings, and establish a formal channel of communication with recognised Yazidi community organisations. Experience elsewhere shows that such measures can be implemented pragmatically under existing principles and at limited cost when planned. Early coordination between courts, victims’ representatives and civil society is key to ensuring that these tools are used by affected communities, while standard safeguards – including limiting camera views to professional participants, applying voice distortion where necessary, and using initials or witness numbers – help address protective measures and fair trial concerns.
According to an exchange we initiated with it, the Paris Assize Court is not yet ready.
Visibility shapes trust in institutions, willingness to cooperate, and belief that justice processes are meaningful. On the other hand, justice carried out far from survivors and out of their sight risks becoming a legal success and a moral failure at the same time.
As one survivor who watched the Aarab appeal hearing on 10 February 2026 at a screening in Sinjar put it: “Trials should be available online so people around the world can see what happened to us. Transparency matters. Justice delayed and hidden is not justice.”
LACK OF JUSTICE IN SYRIA OR IRAQ
From 3 August 2014, ISIL carried out a genocidal campaign against the Yazidi, an ethno-religious minority whose homeland is Sinjar, in Northern Iraq. In a matter of days, thousands were killed or kidnapped. The entire population of Sinjar, more than half a million people, was displaced. Since then, the search for justice has been slow and full of obstacles.
In Iraq, where most of the crimes were committed, comprehensive legislation on core international crimes is still missing. Proceedings have largely taken the form of terrorism trials. In Syria, there was virtually no prospect of accountability for years. At the international level, the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over Iraq or Syria. The only mechanism created was the United Nations Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da’esh/ISIL (UNITAD), mandated to collect and preserve evidence. UNITAD was prematurely closed in September 2024, and its archives were transferred to UN headquarters, placing them beyond the reach of justice.
In this context, and with recent transfers of ISIL detainees from Syria to Iraq, many survivors see little hope that justice will come in a form that recognises their suffering. For them, justice feels distant, abstract, and secondary to more immediate needs.
Natia Navrouzov is a French-qualified lawyer specialising in international criminal justice, universal jurisdiction, and transitional justice. She is the Executive Director of Yazda, a global NGO supporting the Yazidi community. She has documented international crimes, cooperated with UNITAD and works with numerous states investigating and prosecuting ISIL crimes. Her work promotes survivor-centred justice.
