Netherlands
The International Criminal Court on Tuesday ordered €7.2 million ($8.5 million) in compensation to be paid to victims of the Malian former jihadist leader Al Hassan, who was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity in 2024.
The court said it had awarded “collective community-based reparations […] focused on rehabilitation” and “symbolic and satisfaction measures” to 65,202 victims.
Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud, known Al Assan, was convicted of torture, religious persecution and other inhumane acts in 2024 and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Judges found he was a key member of Ansar Dine, one of a number of jihadist groups that seized control of Timbuktu between April 2012 and January 2013.
“Mr. Al Hassan, as the person found responsible for the crimes, which caused the harm to the victims, is the person financially liable for the cost of repairing the harm,” Presiding Judge Kimberly Prost said, addressing the courtroom in the Dutch city of The Hague.
Individualised rehabilitation programmes
The collective rehabilitation measures ordered by the ICC will include “socio-economic support, educational programmes or trainings, and psychological support,” a statement read.
Those who suffered torture and other acts of mutilation will receive individualised rehabilitation programmes, it added.
Women and girls “suffered particular moral and material harm as a result of the crime of persecution,” which had to be reflected in the implementation of reparations, it went on.
While the court has declared Al Hassan liable, it won’t be able to collect the money from the 48-year-old, who was declared indigent and represented by a court-funded lawyer during his trial.
Instead, reparations for the more than 65,000 victims will be paid by the Trust Fund for Victims, set up by the court’s member states to distribute the funds.
Al Hassan was arrested by the Malian authorities and sent to The Hague in March 2018.
The former jihadist leader is due for release in March next year instead of 2028, as the court ruled in July last year that a reduction was “in the interests of justice” because he had waived his right to appeal the verdict and sentence.
Related articles
From the same country
