This blog post discusses judicial reasoning in the ICC’s Al Hassan case, particularly on gender-based persecution. While Judges Prost and Mindua found evidence of persecution on both religious and gender grounds, Judge Akane disagreed. The authors critique Akane’s decision and emphasize the broader implications for gender-based persecution in international law.

In this blog post, the authors discuss the ICC judgment in the Al Hassan case, marking the first trial for gender-based persecution. The judgment was divided, resulting in some convictions, but Al Hassan was acquitted of sexual violence, forced marriage, and gender-based persecution due to disagreements on duress and legal interpretation.

On June 26, 2024, Trial Chamber X of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued the Trial Judgment in the Al Hassan case, concerning international crimes in Timbuktu, Mali, by Ansar Dine and AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb). Despite charges  that included war crimes and crimes against humanity such as forced marriage and rape, Al Hassan was acquitted of all gender-related charges, leading to confusion and disappointment among victims and observers. Although the judgment highlighted the coercive environment in Timbuktu where forced marriages occurred, with Judge Prost convicting Al Hassan, Judges Mindua and Akane acquitted him for different reasons. Mindua cited duress, while Akane claimed a lack of nexus and contribution to the crimes. The majority opinion affirmed that forced marriages were perpetrated by Ansar Dine/AQIM, facilitated by Al Hassan. The judgment’s flaws, particularly in understanding the coercive context and gendered violence, make it likely to be appealed. The Appeals Chamber may yet bring justice and reparations for the victims.

Trial Chamber X of the International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered its judgment in the Al Hassan case, sparking significant discussion regarding the Chamber’s unclear stance on gender-based persecution. Initially, the case seemed poised to clarify the definition of ‘attack’ in war crimes, an issue that has long eluded the ICC. However, the insufficiency of evidence linking Al Hassan to the destruction of cultural sites in Timbuktu led to his acquittal without a legal characterization of these acts. This omission leaves unresolved questions about the scope of ‘attacks’ under international humanitarian law. The Al Hassan judgment missed an opportunity to provide clarity, thus perpetuating ambiguity in ICC jurisprudence.

This blog post explores the Al Hassan case, where he was convicted of multiple serious crimes, including religious persecution but was acquitted of gender-based persecution. The judges agreed on the religious grounds but differed on gender persecution, with duress being a factor that excluded Al Hassan’s responsibility for gender-related crimes. The author discusses why, although the decision to not convict on charges of gender persecution is disappointing, it was still groundbreaking, providing an analysis of the legal reasoning behind the judgement.