Context of the Case
The case arises from the broader attack carried out by the Islamic State (IS) against the Yazidi population in the Sinjar region beginning on the night of 2–3 August 2014. According to the findings of the Higher Regional Court, IS classified Yazidis as “apostates” and sought to destroy the Yazidi religion and its followers. The attack was both extensive and systematic, involving large-scale violence and the organized capture and enslavement of Yazidi women and girls.
The enslavement and trafficking of Yazidi women and children formed part of this overall course of conduct. The Court found that IS’s military actions made possible the capture and subsequent sale of Yazidi women and girls on slave markets, where they were acquired by IS members.
The defendant, an Iraqi national, had voluntarily moved to IS-controlled territory in Syria and served for a prolonged period as head of the IS office for Ruqya. In that capacity, and through his continued presence in IS-held territory, he was aware of IS’s objectives, including the establishment of a caliphate and the practice of enslaving Yazidi women and girls. The Court concluded that he knew that witness A and her daughter B had been captured by IS under threat of armed violence during the attack on the Sinjar region and enslaved in that context
Against this background, the Court examined the defendant’s conduct under the German Code of Crimes against International Law (VStGB), including genocide (§ 6 VStGB), crimes against humanity (§ 7 VStGB), and war crimes (§ 8 VStGB).
Facts of the Case
In June 2015, the defendant purchased witness A, a Yazidi woman, and her five-year-old daughter, witness B, as slaves and brought them into his household in Falluja (referred to in the judgment as “Fa.”) By purchasing them and subjecting them to conditions dictated by him, he claimed a right of ownership over them and exercised powers associated with ownership, thereby enslaving them within the meaning of § 7(1) no. 3 VStGB.
For several weeks, witness A and B were not permitted to leave the household without his permission and were effectively locked in. The defendant imposed strict living conditions, including inadequate food, and subjected both to daily corporal punishment. The Chamber found that both lived in constant fear of him.
The defendant inflicted serious physical and psychological suffering on both victims through repeated beatings, deprivation of freedom, and other forms of mistreatment. He deliberately pushed B, causing injury, and tied her up in direct sunlight in extreme heat, with her arms restrained at head height. Expert evidence established that, during the relevant period between July and September 2015, temperatures in the region ranged from 38.1 to 51 degrees Celsius in the shade, with even higher temperatures in direct sunlight.
Witness A stated that B died after being tied to a window grille in the sun in the yard of the house. Forensic medical evidence confirmed that the child’s death was caused by heatstroke as a result of being tied up in direct sunlight. The Court found that the tying up formed part of the overall pattern of enslavement, torture, serious bodily harm, and deprivation of liberty inflicted on B. It concluded that the death was causally attributable to the defendant’s conduct and represented the realization of the specific danger inherent in that conduct.
The Court further held that, with intent to destroy the Yazidi religious group in whole or in part, the defendant caused serious bodily harm to B and serious mental harm to witness A as members of that group, thereby fulfilling the elements of genocide under § 6(1) no. 2 VStGB.
Iraq
Syrian Arab RepublicOberlandesgericht
§ 6(1) no. 2 VStGB
Genocide
The defendant was guilty of genocide pursuant to § 6(1) no. 2 of the German Code of Crimes against International Law in that, with the intention of destroying the Yazidi religious group as such, in whole or in part, he inflicted serious physical and psychological damage on Witness A and her daughter B as members of the group.
§ 7(1) no. 3 VStGB
Crimes against humanity – Enslavement and trafficking in human beings
With respect to Witness A and her daughter B, the defendant intentionally committed the single offense of enslaving both of them by assuming a right of ownership over them and of trafficking them within the meaning of § 7(1) no. 3 of the German Code of Crimes against International Law.
§ 7(1) no. 5 VStGB
Crimes against humanity - Torture
The defendant intentionally tortured Witness A and her daughter B, whom he had in his custody and who were under his control, pursuant to § 7(1) no. 5 of the German Code of Crimes against International Law by causing them both considerable physical and mental suffering and by causing considerable physical damage to B and considerable mental damage to Witness A, which were not merely the consequence of sanctions permissible under international law.
§ 7(1) no. 8 VStGB
Crimes against humanity – Infliction of severe physical or mental harm
The defendant intentionally caused serious physical damage to B and intentionally caused serious psychological damage to witness A pursuant to § 7(1) no. 8 of the German Code of Crimes against International Law.
§ 7(1) no. 9 VStGB
Crimes against humanity – Severe deprivation of physical liberty
With regard to Witness A and her daughter B, the accused also intentionally severely deprived them of their physical freedom in violation of a general rule of international law pursuant to § 7(1) no. 9 of the German Code of Crimes against International Law.
§ 8(1) no. 3 VStGB
War crimes - Torture
The defendant intentionally treated the witness A and her daughter in a cruel and inhumane manner by inflicting substantial physical and mental suffering or substantial physical and mental damage pursuant to § 8(1) no. 3 of the German Code of Crimes against International Law.
§ 8(1) no. 6 VStGB
War crimes – Aiding and abetting deportation/forcible transfer
By transferring Witness A and her daughter B from Syria to Iraq, the defendant further committed aiding and abetting a war crime against persons pursuant to § 8(1) no. 6 of the German Code of Crimes against International Law.
Witness A claimed compensation from the defendant for her own non-material damages suffered as a result of the defendant's treatment and as a result of her daughter B's death.
Alexandra Lily Kather, The Adjudication of Slavery Crimes against the Yazidi by German Courts: Evolving Jurisprudence and the Need for Rectifying Legal Amendments in German Law, Journal of Human Trafficking, Enslavement and Conflict-Related Sexual Violence (JHEC) 2024 / June 1
Access the case in other languages on the website of the European Network for investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (‘Genocide Prosecution Network’):
English, Spanish, French, Arabic
The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court’s judgment in Taha A.-J. constitutes a landmark in the adjudication of atrocity crimes committed against the Yazidi community. It represents the first conviction worldwide of an ISIS member for genocide against Yazidis. The Court convicted the defendant of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, imposing a life sentence. The Federal Court subsequently confirmed both the factual findings and the legal characterization of the offences, upholding the life sentence.
A central feature of the case is the Court’s application of universal jurisdiction under § 1 of the German Code of Crimes against International Law (VStGB). Although neither the defendant nor the victims were German nationals and the crimes were committed abroad, the Court exercised jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes on the basis that such offences are prosecutable irrespective of territorial or nationality links. The judgment thus affirms Germany’s willingness to operationalize universal jurisdiction in cases involving core international crimes.
From a substantive perspective, the Court provided a detailed factual analysis of ISIL’s slave trading and enslavement system. It emphasized the organized and institutionalized character of the slave trade that emerged following the attack on the Sinjar region, including the systematic enslavement of Yazidi women and girls and the forced separation and militarization of Yazidi boys. The Court described the flourishing slave market in Raqqa and the routine exposure of Yazidi women and girls to rape, beatings, and repeated resale. This intersectional factual analysis—addressing age and gender dimensions—has been characterized as more detailed than in prior German cases concerning Yazidi victims (Kather, 2024).
In its legal assessment, the Court held that Taha A.-J. enslaved the Yazidi mother and her daughter by exercising powers attaching to a right of ownership and by trafficking in human beings within the meaning of § 7(1) no. 3 VStGB. It endorsed the view that trafficking in human beings constitutes a “special case of enslavement” under this provision. The Court further detailed how the defendant purchased the victims, controlled every aspect of their lives, deprived them of food and freedom of movement, exploited the mother’s labour, and treated both as objects under his control.
At the same time, scholarly commentary has questioned the conflation of enslavement as an international crime with trafficking as a transnational offence, noting that trafficking is not itself codified as a core international crime. The case therefore raises broader doctrinal questions regarding the relationship between slave trading, enslavement, and trafficking, and the need for conceptual clarity in judicial practice (Kather, 2024).
The Court also relied on the slave trade context to support findings of aiding and abetting the war crime of expulsion and forced transfer of protected persons under § 8 VStGB. It reasoned that the transfer of the Yazidi mother and daughter from the Sinjar region into IS-controlled territory and into the slave market was directly linked to the broader armed conflict and the organized campaign against the Yazidi population (Kather, 2024).
Importantly, the Federal Court of Justice affirmed that the organized enslavement of Yazidi women and girls, including in connection with religious re-education, was capable of contributing to the destruction of the Yazidi religious group, thereby supporting the genocide conviction.
Procedurally, the case is also notable for the prosecutorial decision to limit the proceedings to offences under the VStGB and to discontinue or set aside counterterrorism charges (Kather, 2024). This reflects a prioritization of international crimes over terrorism-related offences in the final adjudication.
Finally, the case involved the use of electronic evidence, including Facebook Messenger communications and recordings of oral conversations stored on a tablet device. The reliance on such digital material illustrates the evidentiary significance of electronic data in contemporary atrocity crime prosecutions.
Overall, Taha A.-J. stands as a precedent-setting decision in the domestic adjudication of genocide and slavery-related crimes committed by ISIS members, while also prompting ongoing debate regarding the legal conceptualization of enslavement, trafficking, and persecution within the framework of international criminal law (Kather, 2024).