Case: Ahmad al-K. -

Ahmad al-K., a Syrian national, was in command of a small combat group operating in Mohassan, Syria. He was involved in the execution of a Syrian Army soldier, who was held captive in 2012. Video evidence of the execution shows Ahmad al-K. present at the execution, holding a gun and firing shots at the victim. The court of first instance, on 16 July 2021, found Ahmad al-K. guilty of war crime of murder, but acquitted him of the terrorism charges, since it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the combat group he commanded was a terrorist organisation at the time.
The decision was appealed by all parties with the prosecutor’s appeal being granted. The Court of Appeal found that Ahmad Al-K. was the leader of a terrorist organisation, the Ghuraba'a Mohassa. In November 2023, Ahmad al-K. was sentenced to 23 years and 6 months in prison. In determining the sentence, the Court of Appeal took into account that as a foreigner with a revoked residence permit, Ahmad al-K. will not be able to participate in penitentiary programmes and can only serve an unconditional sentence. Further, the Court of Appeal found that the overly long duration of the criminal proceedings must lead to a reduction of the sentence by six months.
This decision was again appealed by the defendant who claimed that there was no evidence showing beyond reasonable doubt that he was the leader of the Ghuraba'a Mohassa and that this organisation had the intent to commit more than one terrorist offence, namely the bombing of a former carpet factory held by the Syrian Army at that time. This appeal was dismissed on last instance by the Supreme Court on 18 February 2025. In dismissing the first ground of appeal relating to Ahmad al-K.’s participation in a terrorist organisation as a leader in summer 2012, the Supreme Court followed the prosecutor’s reasoning stating that it is not unreasonable to believe that even after the bombing and the execution of a Syrian army soldier, Ghuraba'a Mohassa still had the intent to commit terrorist acts, given the previously committed acts, their continued structured character, ongoing cooperation with other armed groups, and continued involvement in armed struggle against the then Syrian government. Insofar as the defence argued that Ghuraba'a Mohassa did not unlawfully force the Syrian government to do something or refrain from doing something because the group opposed an itself repressive regime, the Supreme Court found that merely persons who legitimately attempt to influence a government’s behaviour, for example demonstrators or activists are exempt from this provision and considered not to act with terrorist intent. The Supreme Court thus conclude that the defence’s interpretation of art. 83a of the Dutch Criminal Code was too broad in light of the legislative history of the provision.
Ultimately, both grounds of appeal were dismissed and the guilty verdict against Ahmad al-K. became final on 18 February 2025.