The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud

Original: English No. ICC-01/12-01/18 Date: 23 July 2025

THREE JUGDES OF THE APPEALS CHAMBER APPOINTED FOR THE

REVIEW CONCERNING REDUCTION OF SENTENCE

Before: Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, Presiding Judge Gocha Lordkipanidze Judge Erdenebalsuren Damdin

SITUATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF MALI

IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v. AL HASSAN AG ABDOUL AZIZ AG MOHAMED AG MAHMOUD

Public Redacted

Decision on the review concerning reduction of sentence of Mr Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 1/37

Decision to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court to:

☒ The Office of the Prosecutor ☒ Counsel for the Defence Al Hassan Defence

☒ Legal Representatives of the Victims ☐ Legal Representatives of the Applicants Al Hassan case

☐ Unrepresented Victims ☐ Unrepresented Applicants

(Participation/Reparation)

☐ The Office of Public Counsel ☐ The Office of Public Counsel

for Victims for the Defence

☒ States’ Representatives ☐ Amicus Curiae The Republic of Mali

REGISTRY

Registrar ☐ Counsel Support Section Mr Osvaldo Zavala Giler

☐ Victims and Witnesses Unit ☐ Detention Section

☐ Victims Participation and ☐ Other

Reparations Section

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 2/37

The three judges of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court,

In the review by the Court concerning reduction of sentence of Mr Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud (hereinafter: “Mr Al Hassan”) pursuant to article 110(3) of the Statute,

Render unanimously the following

D E C I S I O N

1 Pursuant to the review conducted under article 110(3) of the Statute, Mr Al Hassan’s original sentence is reduced by 12 months. 2. The date of completion of Mr Al Hassan’s sentence is set to 28 March 2027. 3. The Registrar shall a. provide support and assistance to the Defence in its efforts to identify a State to which Mr Al Hassan can enter following the completion of his sentence; and b. liaise with the information provider of the document specified at paragraph 17 of the present decision, for the purpose of facilitating either a reclassification or a redacted version of said document.

REASONS

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1 On 26 June 2024, Trial Chamber X (hereinafter: “Trial Chamber”) rendered its decision entitled “Trial Judgment” in which Mr Al Hassan was convicted on eight 1 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes.

2 On 20 November 2024, the Trial Chamber (in a different composition) sentenced 2 Mr Al Hassan to a period of 10 years of imprisonment. The Trial Chamber further

1 Trial Judgment , ICC-01/12-01/18-2594-Red (hereinafter: “ Al Hassan Trial Judgment”). 2 Sentencing Judgment , ICC-01/12-01/18-2662, para. 134 (hereinafter: “ Al Hassan Sentencing Judgment”). No: ICC-01/12-01/18 3/37

ordered that the time Mr Al Hassan has spent in detention, from 28 March 2018

3 onwards, be deducted from his sentence.

3 On 17 December 2024, Mr Al Hassan and the Prosecutor filed notices of

discontinuance of their appeals against the Trial Judgment, which the

5 Appeals Chamber found to be valid on 7 March 2025. Mr Al Hassan also indicated

6 that he would not appeal the sentence imposed on him.

4 On 4 February 2025, the Appeals Chamber, recalling that Mr Al Hassan had

served two thirds of the sentence imposed on him on 28 November 2024, appointed,

by majority, Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa, and

Judge Erdenebalsuren Damdin, for the purpose of conducting the review concerning

7 the reduction of Mr Al Hassan’s sentence.

5 On 17 March 2025, the Appeals Chamber appointed for the purpose of the above-

mentioned review Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, Judge Gocha

8 Lordkipanidze, and Judge Erdenebalsuren Damdin (hereinafter: “Panel”).

6 On 19 March 2025, Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza was appointed

9 presiding judge.

7 On 20 March 2025, the Panel: (i) ordered the Registrar to file written observations

on the criteria set out in rule 223(a) to (e) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence

(hereinafter: “Rules”) by 3 April 2025, and to consult, as necessary, with any States

considered to have potentially relevant information in relation to these criteria;

(ii) invited the Republic of Mali (hereinafter: “Mali”) to file written observations,

3 Al Hassan Sentencing Judgment , para. 138. Defence Notice of Discontinuance of Appeal against Trial Judgment rendered by Trial Chamber X on 26 June 2024 , ICC-01/12-01/18-2667 (hereinafter: “Defence Notice of Discontinuance”), with Annex A , public; Prosecution Notice of Discontinuance of its Appeals against the Trial Judgment of Trial Chamber X dated 26 June 2024 , ICC-01/12-01/18-2668. 5 Decision on the notices of discontinuance of the appeals , ICC-01/12-01/18-2688. 6 Annex A to Defence Notice of Discontinuance , para. 2. 7 Decision appointing three judges of the Appeals Chamber for the review concerning reduction of sentence of Mr Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud , ICC-01/12-01/18-2678; Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judge Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza and Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa , ICC-01/12-01/18-2678-OPI. 8 Second decision appointing three judges of the Appeals Chamber for the review concerning reduction of sentence of Mr Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud , ICC-01/12-01/18-2695. 9 Decision on the Presiding Judge in the review concerning reduction of sentence of Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud , ICC-01/12-01/18-2696.

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 4/37

insofar as it has relevant information, on the criteria set out in rule 223(b) to (d) of the

Rules, by 3 April 2025; and (iii) invited Counsel for Mr Al Hassan (hereinafter: “Defence”), the Prosecutor, and the Legal Representatives of the Victims (hereinafter:

“LRVs”) to file written submissions by 11 April 2025 as to: (a) the criteria for review

concerning reduction of sentence set out in article 110(4)(a) to (c) of the Statute and

rule 223(a) to (e) of the Rules; (b) the observations of the Registrar and Mali, as

appropriate; and (c) whether it is necessary to conduct a hearing pursuant to rule 224(1)

10

of the Rules.

8 On 3 April 2025, the Registrar submitted his observations on the criteria set out

11

in rule 223(a) to (c) of the Rules (hereinafter: “Registrar Observations”).

9 On 10 April 2025, the Panel: (i) extended the time limit for Mali to file its

12

observations until 17 April 2025, as well as the time limit for the submissions of the

Defence, the Prosecutor, and the LRVs until 29 April 2025; and (ii) directed the

Registrar to submit a confidential and ex parte version of the Annex to the

Registrar Observations, available only to the Prosecutor, the Defence and/or the LRVs,

13

by 14 April 2025.

10 On 10 April 2025, the Registrar submitted an addendum to the

14

Registrar Observations (hereinafter: “Registrar Addendum”).

10 Order setting the timetable regarding the review concerning reduction of sentence of Mr Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud , ICC-01/12-01/18-2698 (hereinafter: “Timetable Order”). See also Request for an expedited and staggered briefing schedule for the Article 110 sentence review , ICC- 01/12-01/18-2690; Prosecution response to Defence “Request for an expedited and staggered briefing schedule for the Article 110 sentence review” , ICC-01/12-01/18-2693; Réponse des Représentants légaux des victimes à la "Request for an expedited and staggered briefing schedule for the Article 110 sentence review" (ICC-01/12-01/18- 2690) , ICC-01/12-01/18-2697. Registrar’s observations on the criteria set out in rule 223 (a) to (c) of the Rules of Procedure and 11 Evidence , ICC-01/12-01/18-2702, with Annex I, confidential and ex parte, only available to the Registry (a redacted confidential and ex parte, only available to the Registry and Defence, version of Annex I, as well as a confidential redacted version of Annex I, were submitted on 14 April 2025). 12 See Transmission of a Request for Extension of Deadline from the Republic of Mali , ICC-01/12-01/18- 2704, with Annex, confidential, ICC-01/12-01/18-2704-Conf-Anx; see also Defence response to the Republic of Mali’s request for an extension of time, ICC-01/12-01/18-2705-Conf. Decision on the Republic of Mali’s request to extend the time limit and order to the Registrar regarding 13 the “Registrar’s observations on the criteria set out in rule 223 (a) to (c) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence” , ICC-01/12-01/18-2706. Addendum to “Registrar’s observations on the criteria set out in rule 223 (a) to (c) of the Rules of 14 Procedure and Evidence”, 3 April 2025, ICC-01/12-01/18-2702 , ICC-01/12-01/18-2707.

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 5/37

11 On 11 April 2025, the LRVs submitted their submissions on Mr Al Hassan’s

15

sentence review (hereinafter: “LRV Submissions”).

16

12 On 14 April 2025, the Defence disclosed a statement made by Mr Al Hassan.

13 On 17 April 2025, Mali submitted its observations on the reduction of sentence

17

of Mr Al Hassan (hereinafter: “Mali Observations”).

14 On 24 April 2025, the Panel extended the page limit for the Defence’s

submissions by five pages further to a request by the Defence, as well as the page limit

18

for the submissions of the Prosecutor and LRVs if any.

15 On 24 April 2025, the Defence submitted the “Urgent Request for Judicial Assistance” (hereinafter: “Urgent Request”).

19

16 On 29 April 2025, the Prosecutor and the Defence submitted their respective

submissions on Mr Al Hassan’s sentence review (hereinafter: “Prosecutor Submissions” and “Defence Submissions”, respectively).

20

17 On 3 July 2025, the Registry transmitted a document, filed ex parte , only

21

available to the Registry.

II. PRELIMINARY MATTERS

18 First, the Panel recalls that it invited the parties and the LRVs to file written

submissions on whether “pursuant to rule 224(1) of the Rules it is necessary or not to

15 Observations des Représentants légaux des victimes sur les critères applicables à l’examen de la question d’une réduction de peine prévus par l’article 110 et la règle 223 , ICC-01/12-01/18-2708. 16 Defence Disclosure of Evidence, including a statement from Mr Al Hassan , ICC-01/12-01/18-2710, with Annexes A-C, public. 17 Transmission of Observations from the Republic of Mali on the Reduction of Sentence of Mr Al Hassan , ICC-01/12-01/18-2712, with Annex I, public, and Annex II, confidential (a public redacted version of Annex II was submitted on the same day). Decision on the Defence’s request for an extension of page limit 18 , ICC-01/12-01/18-2716. See also Defence Request for Extension of Page Limit for its Article 110 Observations on Sentence Review , ICC- 01/12-01/18-2713. 19 ICC-01/12-01/18-2717-Conf, with Annexes A-C, confidential. 20 Prosecution’s submissions on Mr Al Hassan’s sentence review, ICC-01/12-01/18-2719-Conf (a public redacted version was submitted on 11 July 2025, ICC-01/12-01/18-2719-Corr-Red ); Defence Observations on Article 110 and Rule 223, ICC-01/12-01/18-2720-Conf (a public redacted version of the Defence Submissions was submitted on 8 May 2025, ICC-01/12-01/18-2720-Red ), with Annexes A, B, and C.4 to W, confidential, and Annexes C.1-C.3, public. 21 Transmission of a document, ex parte only available to the Registry, ICC-01/12-01/18-2739-Conf- Exp, with one Annex, ex parte only available to the Registry.

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 6/37

conduct a hearing”. 22 Both the Prosecutor and the Defence submit that a hearing may cause delay and is unnecessary, noting inter alia that the Panel is in possession of all 23 information relevant to make a fully informed determination. The LRVs, for their part, merely expressed a wish for a hearing to be held, without providing any 24 submissions as to its necessity in the context of the present proceedings. Noting that the parties and participants had the opportunity to present their respective views in the present proceedings and considering the parties’ positions, the Panel decided not to convene a hearing.

19 Second, Mali, further to the LRVs’ filing dated 20 March 2025, avers that the sentence reduction review is inadmissible until, to the extent possible, all victims and 25 their representatives have been consulted. In this regard, the Panel observes that, in accordance with the applicable legal framework, it has provided an opportunity for the victims admitted to participate in the present case to submit their views and concerns in relation to the matter of the review of reduction of Mr Al Hassan’s sentence. On this basis, the Panel does not consider it necessary to further address this submission.

III. MERITS

A. Applicable law

20 Article 110(3) of the Statute provides in relevant part that, “[w]hen the person has served two thirds of the sentence, […] the court shall review the sentence to determine whether it should be reduced”.

21 Article 110(4) of the Statute provides:

In its review under paragraph 3, the Court may reduce the sentence if it finds that one or more of the following factors are present: (a) The early and continuous willingness of the person to cooperate with the Court in its investigations and prosecutions; (b) The voluntary assistance of the person in enabling the enforcement of the judgements and orders of the Court in other cases, and in particular providing

22 Timetable Order , para. 3. 23 Defence Submissions , para. 4; Prosecutor Submissions , paras 50-51. 24 LRV Submissions , para. 48. 25 Mali Observations , p. 3. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 7/37

assistance in locating assets subject to orders of fine, forfeiture or reparation which may be used for the benefit of victims; or (c) Other factors establishing a clear and significant change of circumstances sufficient to justify the reduction of sentence, as provided in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence […].

22 Rule 223 of the Rules provides:

In reviewing the question of reduction of sentence pursuant to article 110, paragraphs 3 and 5, the [Panel] shall take into account the criteria listed in article 110, paragraph 4 (a) and (b), and the following criteria: (a) The conduct of the sentenced person while in detention, which shows a genuine dissociation from his or her crime; (b) The prospect of the resocialization and successful resettlement of the sentenced person; (c) Whether the early release of the sentenced person would give rise to significant social instability; (d) Any significant action taken by the sentenced person for the benefit of the victims as well as any impact on the victims and their families as a result of the early release; (e) Individual circumstances of the sentenced person, including a worsening state of physical or mental health or advanced age. 23. As is evident from the terms of these provisions, the purpose of the sentence review procedure is to serve the interests of justice by ensuring a realistic prospect of resocialisation for the sentenced person, while also taking into account the concerns of victims and of the State of resettlement. Read together, these provisions provide a 26 comprehensive framework for the purposes of sentence review. In this section, the Panel will set out in more detail various aspects of the Court’s sentence review framework. By the terms of article 110(4) of the Statute (“the Court may reduce”), a decision on whether to reduce a sentence is discretionary in nature. In determining whether it is appropriate to reduce a sentence, the Panel is required to assess each of

26 Decision on the review concerning reduction of sentence of Mr Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi , 25 November 2021, ICC-01/12-01/15-434-Red3 (hereinafter: “ Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision”), para. 15. See also Decision on the review concerning reduction of sentence of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo , 22 September 2015, ICC-01/04-01/06-3173 (hereinafter: “ Lubanga Sentence Review Decision”), para. 19; Decision on the review concerning reduction of sentence of Mr Germain Katanga , 13 November 2015, ICC-01/04-01/07-3615 (hereinafter: “ Katanga Sentence Review Decision”), para. 19.

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 8/37

the factors under article 110(4) of the Statute and rule 223 of the Rules to determine whether they are in fact present. The presence of at least one factor in favour of 27 reduction is a prerequisite for the Panel’s exercise of discretion to reduce a sentence. However, the existence of such a factor does not guarantee that a sentence will be 28 reduced, as the decision to reduce a sentence is discretionary. Factors found to be present, militating either for or against a reduction of sentence, must be weighed against 29 each other to determine whether a reduction of sentence is appropriate.

24 Furthermore, article 110(4)(c) of the Statute allows the Panel to reduce the sentence if it finds “ other factors establishing a clear and significant change of circumstances sufficient to justify the reduction of sentence” (emphasis added). As previously determined, the “ other factors ” of article 110(4)(c) of the Statute refers 30 to those factors listed in rule 223(a) to (e) of the Rules. Therefore, the factors set out in article 110(4)(a) and (b) of the Statute and the factors listed in rule 223(a) to (e) of the Rules, are those that can, in principle, be taken into account for purposes of 31 considering whether to reduce a sentence. The Panel observes that the factors under rule 223(b) of the Rules (the prospect of resocialization and successful resettlement) and rule 223(c) of the Rules (whether early release would give rise to significant social instability) are factors that would not have been considered by a trial chamber when imposing an appropriate sentence pursuant to article 78(1) of the Statute and rule 145 of the Rules. Thus, in considering whether to reduce a sentence, these factors will be considered for the first time. However, in so far as the factors listed in rule 223(a), (d) and (e) of the Rules were considered by a trial chamber when imposing an appropriate sentence, it is necessary to find that there is a “clear and significant change of circumstances” in relation to these factors from the time that the sentence was imposed. In this regard, the Panel recalls that “clear” is defined as “free from doubt”,

27 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 75. See also Lubanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 22. 28 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 75. See also Lubanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 22. 29 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 15. See also Lubanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 22; Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 20. 30 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 16. See also Lubanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 25; Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 19. 31 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 16. See also Lubanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 25; Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 19. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 9/37

“unambiguous” and “very obvious”, while “significant” is defined as “large enough to be noticed or have an effect” or “of a measurable large amount”. 32

25 The Panel recalls that sentence review proceedings at the Court are not triggered by a request from the sentenced person, but is rather a mandatory proprio motu review that must be conducted by a panel of judges appointed by the Appeals Chamber pursuant to article 110(3) of the Statute. As mentioned, the review conducted by the Panel is discretionary in nature. Consequently, the Panel considers that all participants in the sentence review proceedings, not only the sentenced person, are required to provide any information in their possession, whether weighing for or against a reduction of sentence, relevant to the factors of article 110(4) of the Statute and rule 223 of the 33 Rules. On the basis of all of the relevant information provided, the Panel will, in the exercise of its discretion, determine if any of the factors set out in the Court’s legal 34 framework are present and, if so, whether they justify a reduction of sentence.

B. Review of Mr Al Hassan’s sentence

26 The Panel will first assess each of the factors under article 110(4) of the Statute and rule 223 of the Rules. In conducting its assessment, the Panel has taken into account all of the information submitted in writing by the parties and participants of the sentence review proceedings that is of relevance to each factor, even if they are not exhaustively summarised in the sections below.

1 Article 110(4)(a) of the Statute: The early and continuing willingness of the person to cooperate with the Court in its investigations and prosecutions

(a) Submissions of the participants

27 According to the Defence, Mr Al Hassan demonstrated significant cooperation with the Court, from his early participation in substantive interviews, characterised by the Trial Chamber as informed and voluntary, to his recent renunciation of his right to

32 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 16; Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 47 referring th to “Clear”, Black’s Law Dictionary, (West, 9 ed., 2011). See also “Clear”, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2015, accessed at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clear and “Significant”, Oxford English Dictionary, 2015, accessed at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/learner/significant. 33 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 17. See also Lubanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 32; Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 21. 34 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 17. See also Lubanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 32; Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 21. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 10/37

35 appeal the judgment and sentence. It adds that these statements were instrumental to the Trial Chamber’s ability to establish the facts and ensure effective justice for victims, while the withdrawal of his appeal cemented these facts and further eliminated any procedural uncertainty as to the Prosecution’s ability to use the extensive information 36 provided during such statements. The Defence further avers that Mr Al Hassan’s renunciation of his rights to appeal paves the way for the immediate implementation of 37 reparations, and that [REDACTED].

28 The Prosecutor recalls that, in its Sentencing Judgment, the Trial Chamber found that Mr Al Hassan’s cooperation with the Prosecutor’s investigators at the investigation 38 stage constituted a mitigating circumstance. In the view of the Prosecutor, Mr Al Hassan’s voluntary and comprehensive article 55(2) statements during the investigation phase — statements that the Trial Chamber found to be generally credible 39 and on which it relied in the Trial Judgment — constitute early cooperation. The Prosecutor adds that, following his conviction and sentence, Mr Al Hassan has also demonstrated his continuing cooperation with the Court by means of discontinuing his appeal against his conviction, choosing not to appeal his sentence, attaching to the withdrawal of his appeal a public statement asking for forgiveness, and reiterating his 40 request for forgiveness on 9 April 2025. The Prosecutor finally notes that Mr Al Hassan has committed to take a “non-adversarial approach to reparations”, in line with the “victims’ right to speedy reparations”. 41 Accordingly, the Prosecutor 42 considers that the factor set out in article 110(4)(a) of the Statute is present.

29 The LRVs defer to the assessment of the Panel on this point in the absence of 43 information in their possession.

(b) Determination of the Panel

30 Article 110(4)(a) of the Statute requires the Panel to assess whether there has been an early and continuing willingness of the person to cooperate with the Court in its

35 Defence Submissions , para. 8. 36 Defence Submissions , para. 8. 37 Defence Submissions , paras 8-9. 38 Prosecutor Submissions , paras 11-13. 39 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 14. 40 Prosecutor Submissions , paras 15-17. 41 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 18. 42 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 19. 43 LRV Submissions , para. 17.

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 11/37

investigations and prosecutions. As previously determined, “cooperation” pursuant to this provision must be shown to contribute to the efficient administration of justice at 44 the Court.

31 The Panel notes that “cooperation with the Court” is a potential mitigating circumstance in sentencing proceedings pursuant to rule 145(2)(a)(ii) of the Rules and is generally understood to have the same meaning under article 110(4)(a) of the 45 Statute. To the extent that a trial chamber determines that a convicted person’s conduct qualifies as “cooperation with the Court” and assigns weight to that factor in mitigation of sentence, “a panel conducting a sentence review will not generally revisit this initial determination”. 46 However, the question of whether conduct prior to the imposition of sentence qualifies as an indicator of “early” cooperation within the meaning of article 110(4)(a) of the Statute will be determined on a case by case basis, taking into account a trial chamber’s findings, if any, in this regard in the context of

47 sentencing.

32 The Panel recalls that, in the Al Hassan Sentencing Judgment, the Trial Chamber found that:

121 […] [Mr Al Hassan’s] willingness to voluntarily give interviews to the Prosecution can be considered as cooperation for the purposes of mitigation. The evaluation of the extent and nature of a convicted person’s cooperation and the weight, if any, to be given to this, is within the discretion of the Chamber.

122 In this case, the Chamber recalls that Mr Al Hassan voluntarily gave statements to the Prosecution while he was detained in Mali by national authorities, before the issuance of the ICC’s arrest warrant against him. The interviews spanned many hours and were conducted over 19 days during an eighth month period. Mr Al Hassan’s statements made during these interviews were given in waiver of his right to silence and self incrimination. The statements were lengthy and comprehensive in content, covering a wide range of topics of direct relevance to this case and included inculpatory information. Mr Al Hassan answered questions clearly and in detail, generally providing specific, factual information which was responsive to the question posed and descriptive in nature. Throughout, he was precise and careful in the replies he gave, setting out his basis of knowledge for the responses he gave and avoiding speculation. The Chamber found the statements generally credible and reliable. It relied on them to make

44 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 24. See also Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 34. 45 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 25. See also Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 28. 46 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 25. See also Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 28. 47 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 25. See also Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 28.

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 12/37

findings in the Trial Judgment, including on Mr Al Hassan’s criminal 48 responsibility.

33 At the same time, the Panel takes note of the particular circumstances surrounding Mr Al Hassan’s willingness to cooperate. After having provided statements to the Prosecutor’s investigators while detained in Mali at the behest of the national

authorities, Mr Al Hassan sought to have these statements excluded from the 49 proceedings conducted against him before the Court. Furthermore, following the Trial Chamber’s decision not to exclude these statements, Mr Al Hassan unsuccessfully 50 challenged the weight to be attached to them.

34 The Panel will now assess whether there are any other indications of willingness to cooperate on the part of Mr Al Hassan that either began or continued past the imposition of sentence.

35 Indeed, Mr Al Hassan decided not to appeal the sentence imposed on him by the Trial Chamber and to withdraw his appeal against his conviction. The Panel recalls that

it has been previously found that:

34 […] A convicted person has a statutory right to lodge an appeal against his conviction. The non-exercise of this statutory right should not automatically, and in and of itself, be seen as cooperation with the Court. However, the Panel observes that should a convicted person choose not to exercise this right as a result of acknowledging that he or she is guilty of the crimes committed and publicly apologising therefor, […] such an act prevents the unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings. It furthermore brings finality to the proceedings against him or her and allows the reparations phase of a case to commence in a timely manner, 51 a factor which is of particular importance in the context of the ICC.

36 The Panel has fully considered the circumstances surrounding Mr Al Hassan’s decision not to appeal his sentence and to withdraw his appeal against his conviction, 52 including the statement that he attached to the discontinuance of his appeal. These

48 Al Hassan Sentencing Judgment , paras 121-122. 49 Trial Chamber X, The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud , Article 69(7) Application , 30 March 2021, ICC-01/12-01/18-1346-Red2; Decision on requests related to the submission into evidence of Mr Al Hassan’s statements , 20 May 2021, ICC-01/12-01/18-1475-Red. 50 Al Hassan Trial Judgment , paras 296-326. 51 Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 34. 52 Annex A to Defence Notice of Discontinuance .

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 13/37

steps contribute to the efficient administration of justice and facilitate the expeditious 53 conduct of reparations proceedings, [REDACTED].

37 Below, the circumstances pertaining to the present factor, as set out in the present section, will be weighed with any other circumstances that may be considered in respect of other factors in the Panel’s holistic determination as to whether it is appropriate to reduce Mr Al Hassan’s sentence.

2 Article 110(4)(b) of the Statute: The voluntary assistance of the person in enabling the enforcement of the judgements and orders of the Court in other cases, and in particular providing assistance in locating assets subject to orders of fine, forfeiture or reparation

which may be used for the benefit of victims

(a) Submissions of the participants

38 The Defence did not make any submission concerning the factor under article 110(4)(b) of the Statute. The Prosecutor indicated that he has no information 54 regarding this factor. The LRVs defer to the assessment of the Panel on this point in 55 the absence of information in their possession.

(b) Determination of the Panel

39 Article 110(4)(b) of the Statute requires the Panel to assess whether there is any information supporting a finding of the presence of “the voluntary assistance of [Mr Al Hassan] in enabling the enforcement of the Court’s judgments and orders in other cases, and in particular providing assistance in locating assets subject to orders of fine, forfeiture or reparation which may be used for the benefit of victims” (emphasis added).

40 In the absence of any information demonstrating voluntary assistance rendered by Mr Al Hassan in locating assets subject to orders of fine, forfeiture or reparation which may be used for the benefit of victims, the Panel finds that the factor under article 110(4)(b) of the Statute does not need to be considered any further.

53 Defence Submissions , paras 8-9, 33. 54 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 20. 55 LRV Submissions , para. 17. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 14/37

3 Rule 223(a): The conduct of the sentenced person while in detention, which shows a genuine dissociation from his or her crime

(a) Submissions of the participants

41 The Defence submits that Mr Al Hassan’s actions demonstrate a “change in circumstance” since they took place post-sentence. 56 The Defence recalls that the Trial Chamber placed no weight on Mr Al Hassan’s July 2024 apology, because it was a “general request for forgiveness” that had not been “communicated personally and directly to the public and the victims”. 57 It adds that, in contrast, Mr Al Hassan’s subsequent apology of December 2024 asked “for forgiveness from all those [he] harmed and from all the victims of Timbuktu during the period from May 2012 to January 2013, whose suffering was set out in the Trial Judgment and Decision on Sentence”, and that Mr Al Hassan instructed his Defence to file this apology and another apology from April 2025 publicly and to disseminate them broadly amongst affected communities in local languages and, where possible, it was conveyed directly 58 to direct victims.

42 The Defence also contends that the hadith cited in Mr Al Hassan’s statement is 59 considered the consummate way to seek forgiveness in Islam. It further submits that, while the decision to accept or reject an apology is deeply personal, community leaders have opined that Mr Al Hassan’s public expression of remorse and deprecation of wrongful conduct will assist reconciliation and restorative justice processes in 60 Timbuktu. The Defence is additionally of the view that Mr Al Hassan’s renunciation of his appeal rights conveys a personal endorsement of the legitimacy of ICC judgments “operating as a direct rebuttal to public statements from regional extremist groups calling for the population to reject the United Nations and resist any form of law and ”. 61 order not based on Shari’a

43 Lastly, the Defence considers that the LRVs’ criticism that the apology’s content does not satisfy the wishes of the victims is objectively unreasonable as the Defence

56 Defence Submissions , para. 11. 57 Defence Submissions , para. 11. 58 Defence Submissions , para. 11. 59 Defence Submissions , para. 12. 60 Defence Submissions , para. 12. 61 Defence Submissions , para. 13.

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 15/37

received no feedback after Mr Al Hassan sought the LRVs’ input as to how best he 62 could repair the harm his actions caused to victims after the Trial Judgment.

44 The Prosecutor recalls that the Trial Chamber declined to give weight to Mr Al Hassan’s unsworn statement in mitigating the sentence as it found it to be vague and lacked an acknowledgment of wrongdoing or harm caused, while further noting that, during the trial, Mr Al Hassan did not make any public apologies or express 63 remorse toward the victims, and that the unsworn statement was confidential. According to the Prosecutor, Mr Al Hassan’s subsequent decision to withdraw his appeal — coupled with his public statement accepting that the findings of the Trial Judgment and Sentencing Decision would be final and requesting forgiveness from the victims (which he reiterated in a statement of 9 April 2025) — demonstrates a clear and significant change in circumstances as Mr Al Hassan’s apologies have been made 64 publicly and are more direct and specific. The Prosecutor, therefore, considers that 65 the factor set out in rule 223(a) of the Rules is present.

45 The LRVs point out that the conduct of the sentenced person while in detention may be the outcome of a mere survival strategy in an environment where some form of 66 resocialization is mandatory.

46 The Registrar indicates that he does not have observations on this point as the Court’s Detention Centre is not set up as a rehabilitation centre. 67

47 Mali submits that the sentenced person does not meet the criteria provided for in 68 rule 223(a) of the Rules.

(b) Determination of the Panel

48 Rule 223(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to assess whether the conduct of a sentenced person while in detention shows a genuine dissociation from his or her crime. The Panel recalls that good conduct while in detention generally or vis-à-vis other

62 Defence Submissions , para. 14. 63 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 22. 64 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 23. 65 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 25. 66 LRV Submissions , para. 26. 67 Registrar Observations , para. 5. 68 Mali Observations , p. 3. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 16/37

detainees is insufficient, on its own, to establish the necessary connection between this 69 conduct and a genuine dissociation of the sentenced person from his or her crime.

Furthermore, as discussed above, in relation to the factor listed in rule 223(a) of the

Rules, it is necessary to find that there is a “clear and significant change of circumstances” from the time that the sentence was imposed. 70

49 The Panel recalls that the Trial Chamber declined to give weight to

Mr Al Hassan’s general request for forgiveness for the purposes of mitigation of 71 sentence. In this regard, the Trial Chamber held as follows:

97 The Chamber considers that during the course of the trial, Mr Al Hassan did not make any public apologies or expression of remorse towards the victims at any time. The Chamber also notes that the Defence presented a paraphrased version of Mr Al Hassan’s abovementioned statements, at the sentencing hearing and in the public version of its Sentencing Brief. The Chamber finds that the fact that the present ‘apologies’ referred to by the Defence appear in a written statement that is filed confidentially defeats in part the goal of such a step, which is to be communicated personally and directly to the public and the victims, in order to contribute to the process of peace and reconciliation. The Defence’s explanations on the specific meaning of Mr Al Hassan seeking forgiveness in the context of his religious belief, while taken into consideration, does not alter this 72 conclusion.

50 The Panel observes that, when discontinuing his appeal against his conviction,

Mr Al Hassan referred to the importance of seeking forgiveness in his religious beliefs and “ask[ed] for forgiveness from all those [he] harmed and from all the victims of

Timbuktu during the period from May 2012 to January 2013, whose suffering was set out in the Trial Judgment and Decision on Sentence”. 73 In addition, Mr Al Hassan

subsequently issued another statement, reiterating the statement quoted above,

underlining the importance of honesty in seeking forgiveness, and extending an apology 74 to all victims regardless of their beliefs. Both statements were issued publicly and 75 disseminated broadly amongst affected communities in local languages.

69 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 41. See also Lubanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 45; Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 47. 70 See paragraph 2424 above. 71 Al Hassan Sentencing Judgment , para. 98. 72 Al Hassan Sentencing Judgment , para. 97. 73 Annex A to Defence Notice of Discontinuance , paras 4-5. 74 Annex C.2 to Defence Submissions , paras 14-15. 75 Defence Submissions , para. 11.

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 17/37

51 Furthermore, the Panel has had regard to the fact that Mr Al Hassan provided the aforementioned statements only after the Trial Chamber had: (i) noted that Mr Al Hassan had not made any public apologies or expressed remorse toward the victims during the trial; and (ii) determined that a statement made by Mr Al Hassan containing an apology was not to be afforded any weight as it had not been 76 communicated personally and directly to the public and victims. In addition, the Panel notes that the statements issued by Mr Al Hassan after his conviction and sentence did not only serve to apologise to the victims and to ask for forgiveness, but also to convey Mr Al Hassan’s own experiences in connection with the events for which he stood trial.

77 52. Lastly, the Panel has also received information that [REDACTED]. In addition, 78 information has been placed before the Panel indicating that [REDACTED]. Nonetheless, the Panel has duly considered that the majority of the victims have 79 expressed reservations regarding Mr Al Hassan’s apologies.

53 Below, the circumstances pertaining to the present factor, as set out in the present section, will be weighed with any other circumstances that may be considered in respect of other factors in the Panel’s holistic determination as to whether it is appropriate to reduce Mr Al Hassan’s sentence.

4 Rule 223(b): The prospect of the resocialization and successful resettlement of the sentenced person

(a) Submissions of the participants

54 The Defence asserts that, despite being held in a custodial setting, far from home for over eight years, Mr Al Hassan has successfully maintained strong family ties and 80 his desire to be reunited with his family is shared equally by them. The Defence is also of the view that Mr Al Hassan’s return to the family unit is imperative to the security and welfare of his children, particularly in light of the unstable security 81 situation, [REDACTED]. The Defence adds that Mr Al Hassan’s prospects for

76 Al Hassan Sentencing Judgment , paras 97-98. 77 [REDACTED]. 78 [REDACTED]. 79 LRV Submissions , paras 22, 24, 44. 80 Defence Submissions , para. 16. 81 Defence Submissions , para. 16. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 18/37

reintegration into society are further buttressed by his public apology and statements of 82 remorse.

55 Moreover, the Defence submits that, to respect the victims’ views, Mr Al Hassan has provided signed assurance that he will not return to Timbuktu prior to 28 March 2028, while expressing his unequivocal wish not to return to Mali following 83 recent events, giving rise to a risk of refoulement. According to the Defence, 84 85 [REDACTED]. The Defence adds that [REDACTED]. It also avers that, [REDACTED], Mr Al Hassan has provided signed assurances that he will respect an 86 array of conditions.

56 The Prosecutor recalls that the Trial Chamber found that “the information before it, [was] insufficient to make findings, even on a balance of probabilities, on future rehabilitation prospects and the consequences of Mr Al Hassan’s return to Timbuktu and reinsertion into society in general”. 87 The Prosecutor further notes that, in his statement, attached to the Defence Notice of Discontinuance, and in his recent 9 April 2025 Statement, Mr Al Hassan indicated that, after his release, he would be committed to engaging in the training of women in the medical field and in advocacy action for the education of women and girls, that he wishes to work together with others towards restorative and transitional justice in Mali, and that he made general remarks suggesting a dissociation from the events in Timbuktu between May 2012 and 88 January 2013.

57 The Prosecutor is nonetheless unable to determine whether the factor under 89 rule 223(b) of the Rules is present due to the limited information currently available. The Prosecutor does indicate his agreement that a further risk assessment by the Registry will be necessary in light of the Registrar’s indication that additional

82 Defence Submissions , para. 17. 83 Defence Submissions , para. 18. 84 Defence Submissions , para. 18. 85 Defence Submissions , para. 19. 86 Defence Submissions , para. 20. 87 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 26. 88 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 28. 89 Prosecutor Submissions , paras 27, 31.

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 19/37

information is required to conduct a risk assessment on Mr Al Hassan’s potential return 90 to Mali and [REDACTED].

58 The LRVs contend that, owing to the distinct nature of the proceedings before the Court, extreme prudence must be exercised regarding the message conveyed by international criminal justice and the need to avoid betraying that message by granting 91 a release merely on the basis of capacity for resocialization. They defer to the 92 assessment of the Panel on this point in the absence of information in their possession.

59 According to the Registrar, conducting an individual risk assessment regarding Mr Al Hassan’s potential return to Mali is challenging due to changes in his statements, shifts in his positions over the past two years, and the political and security situations in the country, while further stating that a more comprehensive assessment requires 93 more information. The Registrar nonetheless avers that there is no indication that Mr Al Hassan would face any threats if he did not return to Mali and there are prospects 94 that he could resocialize and successfully resettle elsewhere in the Sahel region. The Registrar also specifies that, while Mr Al Hassan has not been introduced to a rehabilitation programme, he has been regularly attending the visits of the spiritual advisor, participating in the education programme, the creativity classes and the work 95 programme, and voluntarily cleaning the cell of another detained person. Lastly, the Registrar adds that Mr Al Hassan’s interaction with other detained persons, staff, and 96 custody officers does not suggest any impediment to his resocialization.

60 Mali submits that the sentenced person does not meet the criteria provided for in 97 rule 223(b) of the Rules.

(b) Determination of the Panel

61 Rule 223(b) of the Rules requires the Panel to assess whether there is a prospect of the resocialization and successful resettlement of the sentenced person. The Panel

90 Prosecutor Submissions , paras 29-31. 91 LRV Submissions , para. 10. 92 LRV Submissions , para. 27. 93 Registrar Observations , para. 6. 94 Registrar Observations , para. 7. 95 Registrar Observations , paras 8-10. 96 Registrar Observations , para. 11. 97 Mali Observations , p. 3. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 20/37

recalls that, as this factor was not considered for the purposes of sentencing, it is being 98 considered for the first time in the context of sentence review proceedings.

62 At the outset, the Panel observes that the Court does not have any specific mechanisms at its disposal to allow it to measure “the prospect of the resocialization and successful resettlement of the sentenced person”. In this context, it also notes the Registry’s assessment that conducting an individual risk assessment regarding Mr Al Hassan’s potential return to Mali is challenging and that a more comprehensive 99 assessment requires more information.

63 Furthermore, the Panel has taken Mr Al Hassan’s strong family ties into account, as well as his future plans [REDACTED]. However, Mr Al Hassan has also separately indicated that he does not wish to return to Mali. As to his potential resettlement [REDACTED], the Panel, while noting Mr Al Hassan’s assurances, has not received any information from [REDACTED]. [REDACTED].

64 Below, the circumstances pertaining to the present factor, as set out in the present section, will be weighed with any other circumstances that may be considered in respect of other factors in the Panel’s holistic determination as to whether it is appropriate to reduce Mr Al Hassan’s sentence.

5 Rule 223(c): Whether the early release of the sentenced person would give rise to significant social instability

(a) Submissions of the participants

65 According to the Defence, there are no grounds that reliably establish that 100 Mr Al Hassan’s release poses a risk of significant social stability. The Defence submits that Mr Al Hassan is not a political, military or religious leader nor does he have any existing ties to such groups, and that the Trial Chamber acknowledged that personal exigencies led Mr Al Hassan to be convinced of the necessity of working for 101 Ansar Dine. It adds that, although he exercised a senior role in the Islamic Police, Mr Al Hassan was not a member of any of the decision-making “ apparati ” of the groups, had no military training, was not involved in military engagements, and did not

98 See paragraph 2424 above. 99 Registrar Observations , para. 6. 100 Defence Submissions , para. 22. 101 Defence Submissions , para. 23. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 21/37

102 play a role in formulating moral rules. The Defence further contends that, in contrast to the LRVs’ arguments, the personal situations of Mr Al Mahdi and Mr Al Hassan cannot be equated as Mr Al Mahdi was a high ranking member of Al Qaeda with more 103 authority.

66 In addition, the Defence contends that security ramifications are eliminated further by Mr Al Hassan’s intention to reside far from Timbuktu in [REDACTED] in environments and under conditions which show his commitment to a peaceful civilian 104 life with his family. The Defence also avers that there is no objective, founded evidence that Mr Al Hassan’s release would present a risk to victims and witnesses as, 105 at the end of trial, [REDACTED]. The Defence further asserts that Mr Al Hassan’s early release would not affect the reparations process as the recovery of assets will not be compromised since Mr Al Hassan is indigent and Mr Al Hassan has publicly 106 expressed his support for the reparations process. It considers that, since reparations may be delayed for reasons beyond Mr Al Hassan’s control, linkage between the two would unjustifiably condition his release on factors that have no linkage to his conduct 107 and prospects for rehabilitation and reintegration.

67 In the view of the Defence, while opposing Mr Al Hassan’s release on this ground, Mali has not adduced any specific reasons or proof that Mr Al Hassan’s release 108 would give rise to significant social instability. The Defence adds that Mali’s views 109 also need to be weighed, in light of the [REDACTED].

68 Lastly, the Defence asserts that the Panel can place no weight on views influenced by disappointment following Mr Al Hassan’s acquittal for sexual and gender based 110 crimes or the length of his sentence. In the submission of the Defence, reliance on disappointment concerning his acquittals would suborn the legitimacy and enforcement of acquittals by the Court and further contravene innocence protections enshrined in the

102 Defence Submissions , para. 24. 103 Defence Submissions , para. 24. 104 Defence Submissions , para. 25. 105 Defence Submissions , para. 26. 106 Defence Submissions , para. 27. 107 Defence Submissions , para. 28. 108 Defence Submissions , para. 29. 109 Defence Submissions , para. 30. 110 Defence Submissions , para. 31. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 22/37

111 Statute and human rights law. It adds that disappointment concerning the length of sentence also does not satisfy the threshold of significant social instability or constitute 112 a rational basis for denying early release.

113 69. The Prosecutor [REDACTED]. The Prosecutor adds that, based on the observations of Mali, the LRVs and the Registry, there is some risk that Mr Al Hassan’s early release to Mali could lead to significant social instability, while further indicating that these observations do not permit a clear assessment of the extent of that risk and that the unclear level of risk should be considered when weighing this against the other 114 relevant factors. The Prosecutor also notes that the Registrar has assessed any risk of significant social instability as low, if Mr Al Hassan were to be released to a location 115 other than Mali.

70 The LRVs indicate that they interviewed the victims admitted to participate in Ségou, Timbuktu and Bamako and that the answers to the questions put to the victims are presented below under the LRVs’ analysis of the criterion stated in rule 223(d) of 116 the Rules. According to the LRVs, these answers suggest that the apprehension 117 reported by the victims is, in itself, a source of social instability. The LRVs also consider that any apology by Mr Al Hassan should not be taken into account when 118 considering the risk of social instability in the event of early release. The LRVs further contend that the victims expressed discontent regarding the early release of Mr Al Hassan, the extent of which must be assessed in light of the frustration already 119 caused by the shortness of the sentence.

71 The Registrar asserts that there have been no observable or reported incidents and there is no indication that the early release of Mr Al Hassan “would give rise to significant social instability” in Mali or elsewhere, despite victim communities and activists having indicated that they are upset, angry, frustrated and disappointed

111 Defence Submissions , para. 31. 112 Defence Submissions , paras 31-32. 113 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 35. 114 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 36. 115 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 36. 116 LRV Submissions , paras 28-29. 117 LRV Submissions , paras 21-22, 29. 118 LRV Submissions , para. 22. 119 LRV Submissions , para. 30.

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 23/37

following Mr Al Hassan’s acquittal on charges related to sexual violence and the 120 Prosecutor’s decision not to appeal the acquittal. The Registrar adds that the prevailing political and security conditions across the country are not conducive to public gatherings, protests, demonstrations, or rallies, due to the potential risks to 121 participants.

72 Mali asserts that the early release of Mr Al Hassan could give rise to significant social instability on account of the fact that Mali is still beset by terrorism and that numerous witnesses and accessories to the acts, of which Mr Al Hassan was convicted, 122 are still unaccounted for. It adds that at no time did Mr Al Hassan make it possible to put an end to those serious acts, which continue to cause widespread loss of life in the north, centre and south of the country, nor has he ever shown any dissociation from 123 them. Mali also submits that there is a threat of reprisals, as occurred following the arrangements in 2013, when members of armed groups were freed or some of their 124 warrants of arrest were lifted. Lastly, Mali contends that Mr Al Hassan’s 10-year sentence seems insubstantial when compared to the sentences set forth in the Malian 125 Criminal Code for the same acts.

(b) Determination of the Panel

73 Rule 223(c) of the Rules requires the Panel to assess whether the early release of a sentenced person would give rise to significant social instability. The Panel observes that this is a negative factor and if found to be present, may weigh against a reduction 126 of sentence. The Panel recalls that “[s]ignificant social instability may be demonstrated by information indicating that the sentenced person’s return to the State at issue could, inter alia , undermine public safety, cause social unrest, such as riots or acts of ethnic-based violence, lead to the commission of new international crimes by

120 Registrar Observations , paras 12-13. 121 Registrar Observations , para. 13. 122 Mali Observations , p. 3. 123 Mali Observations , pp 3-4. 124 Mali Observations , p. 4. 125 Mali Observations , p. 4. 126 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 58. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 24/37

the sentenced person or by his or her supporters, or undermine public confidence in the domestic legal system”. 127

74 The Panel observes that Mali has explicitly stated that Mr Al Hassan’s early release would lead to significant social instability since Mali is still beset by terrorism 128 and there remains a threat of reprisals. In addition, the Panel notes the concerns raised 129 by the victims about the possibility of Mr Al Hassan returning to Mali. On the other hand, the Registry indicates that there is no indication that the early release of Mr Al Hassan “would give rise to significant social instability” in Mali or elsewhere. 130 131 In addition, certain information placed before the Panel suggests that [REDACTED].

75 Furthermore, the Panel observes that [REDACTED]. Accordingly, in view of the need to take a decision at this stage based on the information currently available, the Panel will, in view of the fact that Mr Al Hassan is a Malian national, limit its analysis in respect of this factor to Mali.

76 Below, the circumstances pertaining to the present factor, as set out in the present section, will be weighed with any other circumstances that may be considered in respect of other factors in the Panel’s holistic determination as to whether it is appropriate to reduce Mr Al Hassan’s sentence.

6 Rule 223(d): Any significant action taken by the sentenced person for the benefit of the victims as well as any impact on the victims and their families as a result of the early release

(a) Submissions of the participants

77 The Defence avers that Mr Al Hassan has taken concrete and significant action 132 for the benefit of the victims. According to the Defence, Mr Al Hassan’s widely disseminated public apology is an “objectively significant action” for the benefit of victims, and a public apology is a form of “satisfaction” within the context of reparations and remedies for victims of gross violations of international human

127 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 58; Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 74, referring to A. Oehmichen, “ Commentary Rules of Procedure and Evidence ”, in Commentary on the Law of the International Criminal Court , Case Matrix Network, para. 403. 128 Mali Observations , pp. 3-4. 129 LRV Submissions , paras 13, 25, 31-35. 130 Registrar Observations , paras 12-13. 131 See paragraph 5252 above. 132 Defence Submissions , para. 33.

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 25/37

133 rights. It submits that Mr Al Hassan spoke out against the crimes for which he was convicted as well as sexual and gender based violence crimes for which he was 134 acquitted. The Defence further asserts that, even before the ICC arrest warrant’s issuance, Mr Al Hassan expressed opposition to the way women were imprisoned by Hesbah, and his dissociation from such actions is reflected by his facilitation of professional training and opportunities for women before and after 2012, and public advocacy for religious freedom and critical women’s rights. 135

78 The Defence also contends that, while the LRVs seek to minimise the positive effects of Mr Al Hassan’s apology, the question for the Panel is not whether all victims are satisfied, but whether Mr Al Hassan’s action objectively generated benefits, which 136 it reportedly did. It adds that the narrative that there can be no forgiveness until victims have received reparations is counterproductive, as Mr Al Hassan has made significant efforts to expedite reparations [REDACTED], but he lacks control over the timing of the award of reparations, which will be made through the Trust Fund for 137 Victims because he is indigent.

79 The Prosecutor contends that, following his conviction and sentencing, Mr Al Hassan has undertaken significant steps that could benefit the victims of the crimes for which he was convicted: (i) Mr Al Hassan discontinued his appeal against the Trial Judgment and chose not to appeal the Sentencing Judgment: (ii) discontinuance of the appeals ensured that the outcome in this case is final, allowing the victims to seek and obtain reparations, although some victims expressed their disappointment, anger and frustration with the Prosecutor’s discontinuance of his appeal; (iii) Mr Al Hassan publicly apologised to the victims when discontinuing his appeal, which he reiterated in his 9 April 2025 Statement although the LRVs indicate that a number of victims consider the apology to be opportunistic and not obviously sincere; and (iv) Mr Al Hassan has committed to take a “non-adversarial approach to reparations”. 138

133 Defence Submissions , para. 33. 134 Defence Submissions , para. 33. 135 Defence Submissions , para. 33. 136 Defence Submissions , para. 34. 137 Defence Submissions , para. 35. 138 Prosecutor Submissions , paras 38-40. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 26/37

80 The Prosecutor further notes that, in light of the submissions and observations provided by the LRVs, the Registry and Mali, there is information that the victims perceive Mr Al Hassan’s actions negatively and consider that his release would likely 139 have a negative impact on them and their families. The Prosecutor, therefore, defers to the Panel’s discretion to determine whether the factor under rule 223(d) of the Rules 140 is present.

81 The LRVs aver, on the basis of recently gathered observations from victims in Bamako, Timbuktu and Ségou, that: (i) the vast majority of the victims categorically objected to the early release of Mr Al Hassan as the reduction of the sentence – which they already consider to be short – would leave them with the feeling that the gravity of their suffering was not fully acknowledged; (ii) the early release of Mr Al Hassan would be a threat, may revive tensions within the affected communities and could lead to an intensification of their deep-seated trauma; and (iii) the early release of 141 Mr Al Hassan would trigger deep down in them a feeling of injustice.

82 The LRVs also emphasise that reparations proceedings are ongoing and that the 142 expectations of the victims in that respect must be taken into account. In this respect, the LRVs also express their discomfort at the Registry’s statement that the Defence has indicated to the Registry its “willingness to provide any information in its possession that could help in the exercise of identifying any of the direct victims in the Chamber’s list” since the victims’ identities are protected for their safety, by virtue of a decision 143 of the Court.

83 Regarding any significant action by the sentenced person, the LRVs submit that it is difficult for an apology and request for forgiveness to qualify as factors to be considered under rule 223(d) of the Rules where the apology was not sought and the 144 request for forgiveness is considered insincere. The LRVs also underline that, if the Defence were to present any action for the benefit of the victims that was not already

139 Prosecutor Submissions , paras 41-42. 140 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 44. 141 LRV Submissions , paras 13, 25, 31-35. 142 LRV Submissions , paras 36-37. 143 LRV Submissions , paras 38-39. 144 LRV Submissions , para. 24. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 27/37

taken within the framework of proceedings, the victims should be allowed to respond 145 or, failing this, such an action may not be taken into account by the Panel.

84 According to the Registrar, the Defence has indicated its “willingness to provide any information in its possession that could help in the exercise of identifying any of the direct victims on the Chamber’s list” in relation to the reparation proceedings. 146 The Registrar further reports the following trends arising from recent field activities discussing the possibility of the early release of Mr Al Hassan: (i) a number of interlocutors indicated that early release would be perceived as additional suffering for the victims consulted and that Mr Al Hassan should serve his full sentence; (ii) the victims and NGOs consulted believe that early release would have an impact on the security situation due to the fact that sleeper cells in Timbuktu could benefit from Mr Al Hassan’s support; (iii) human rights organisations consulted share the same concerns as the victims; and (iv) the organisations consulted also believe that the pardon expressed by Mr Al Hassan’s family should not conceal his responsibility for certain 147 serious crimes and that he should serve his full sentence.

85 Mali submits that at no time was it observed that the sentenced person meets the 148 criteria provided for in rule 223(d) of the Rules.

(b) Determination of the Panel

86 Rule 223(d) of the Rules requires the Panel to determine whether the sentenced person has taken any significant action for the benefit of the victims as well as any impact on the victims and their families as a result of the early release.

87 In this respect, the Panel notes that the LRVs submit that the majority of the 149 victims consulted oppose Mr Al Hassan’s early release. In particular, it is observed that the victims are of the view that Mr Al Hassan’s early release could have a number of detrimental effects. First, as Mr Al Hassan’s acts had a deep and lasting effect on them and their families, the reduction of the sentence - which they already consider to be short – would leave them with the feeling that the gravity of their suffering was not

145 LRV Submissions , para. 40. 146 Registrar Observations , para. 14. 147 Registrar Observations , paras 15-19. 148 Mali Observations , p. 3. 149 LRV Submissions , para. 32. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 28/37

150 fully acknowledged by the Court. Second, the victims voiced fears for their safety in the event of Mr Al Hassan’s early release, and added that this may revive tensions within the affected communities and could lead to an intensification of their deep-seated 151 trauma. Lastly, a large number of victims indicated that the early release of Mr Al Hassan would amount to injustice, destroy their faith in the justice system and 152 send a message of impunity to society as a whole. The Panel has also taken into account that the LRVs do not endorse Mr Al Hassan’s proposal to provide information to help identify any direct victims since the victims’ identities are protected for their 153 safety.

88 Below, the circumstances pertaining to the present factor, as set out in the present section, will be weighed with any other circumstances that may be considered in respect of other factors in the Panel’s holistic determination as to whether it is appropriate to reduce Mr Al Hassan’s sentence.

7 Rule 223(e): Individual circumstances of the sentenced person, including a worsening state of physical or mental health or advanced age

(a) Submissions of the participants

89 The Defence holds the view that Mr Al Hassan exhibits several relevant 154 intersectional forms of vulnerability, which militate in favour of early release. The Defence contends that, as a torture survivor, Mr Al Hassan has experienced significant forms of trauma and hardship, which were relived and heightened during the COVID- 155 19 pandemic. The Defence adds that the emotional hardships that Mr Al Hassan experiences as a foreign national are further multiplied by the insecurity and deprivation his family endures, as members of a minority group, which suffers various ongoing 156 forms of persecution.

150 LRV Submissions , para. 32. 151 LRV Submissions , para. 33. 152 LRV Submissions , para. 35. 153 LRV Submissions , paras 38-39. 154 Defence Submissions , para. 36. 155 Defence Submissions , para. 36. 156 Defence Submissions , para. 36.

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 29/37

90 The Defence further argues that the circumstances of Mr Al Hassan’s family

157 158 warrant independent consideration. It avers that [REDACTED]. According to the

Defence, the deteriorating security landscape and Mr Al Hassan’s absence have

159 culminated in the physical separation of his immediate family [REDACTED]. The

Defence submits that this unwanted [REDACTED] has re-opened emotional wounds

caused by Mr Al Hassan’s prolonged enforced disappearance between April 2017 and

160 March 2018, and the death of his daughter in December 2020. The Defence considers

that the ongoing fragmentation of Mr Al Hassan’s family constitutes a significant

161 change in his individual circumstances.

91 The Prosecutor has no information post-dating the Sentencing Judgment

regarding the factor under rule 223(e) of the Rules and adds that the

162 Registrar Observations do not appear to be directly relevant to this factor.

92 The LRVs consider that the observations of the Registry on this point are ill-timed

163 for the assessment of the criterion referred to in rule 223(e) of the Rules.

93 In the view of the Registrar, Mr Al Hassan has been generally cooperative with

staff throughout his time in the Court’s Detention Centre, even though it regularly

occurred that his comments and behaviour caused friction between groups of detained

164 persons or between detained persons and staff. The Registrar adds that Mr Al Hassan

165 does not have any disciplinary incidents on his record.

94 In respect of the assertion that Mr Al Hassan’s “comments and behaviour caused

friction”, the Registrar specifies that Mr Al Hassan does not have any disciplinary

incidents on his record and, in a custodial setting, some friction and tension are a normal

166 part of life. The Registrar adds that Mr Al Hassan respects the authority of custodial

167 staff and has had good relations with them. Furthermore, according to the Registrar,

157 Defence Submissions , para. 37. 158 Defence Submissions , para. 37. 159 Defence Submissions , para. 38. 160 Defence Submissions , para. 39. 161 Defence Submissions , para. 39. 162 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 45. 163 LRV Submissions , para. 41. 164 Registrar Observations , para. 20. 165 Registrar Observations , para. 21. 166 Registrar Addendum , para. 7. 167 Registrar Addendum , para. 8.

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 30/37

these types of behavioural and conduct observations would not be contained in 168 Mr Al Hassan’s detention record. Lastly, the Registrar confirms that Mr Al Hassan 169 maintained good contact with his family throughout his detention.

(b) Determination of the Panel

95 As to Mr Al Hassan’s “intersectional forms of vulnerability”, the Panel recalls that the Trial Chamber rejected similar arguments in relation to sentence mitigation and there is no information before the Panel, such as medical or expert reports, pointing towards a change of circumstances in this respect.

96 With respect to Mr Al Hassan’s family situation, the Panel understands the Defence to be arguing that the deteriorated health of [REDACTED], coupled with the worsening security situation, have caused a change in his responsibilities vis-à-vis his 170 family. The Panel has carefully considered [REDACTED]. Accordingly, it considers that, in view of these circumstances, the extent of Mr Al Hassan’s responsibilities visà-vis his family has considerably increased in comparison with his responsibilities existing prior to the imposition of his sentence.

97 Therefore, the Panel finds that there has been a significant change in Mr Al Hassan’s individual circumstances, and accordingly concludes that this factor is present. Below, the present factor will be weighed with any other circumstances that may be considered in respect of other factors in the Panel’s holistic determination as to whether it is appropriate to reduce Mr Al Hassan’s sentence.

C. The Panel’s determination on whether it is appropriate to reduce Mr Al Hassan’s sentence

1 Submissions of the participants 98. The Defence requests the Panel to commute Mr Al Hassan’s sentence and grant 171 immediate early release. It submits that Mr Al Hassan has served more than 70% of 172 his 10-year sentence and fully satisfies the release threshold.

168 Registrar Addendum , para. 9. 169 Registrar Addendum , para. 10. 170 [REDACTED]. 171 Defence Submissions , para. 1. 172 Defence Submissions , para. 1. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 31/37

99 The Prosecutor asserts that Mr Al Hassan’s early and continuing willingness to cooperate with the Court’s investigations and prosecutions (article 110(4)(a) of the Statute) and his post-sentencing conduct showing a genuine dissociation from his crimes (rule 223(a) of the Rules) outweigh the risk that Mr Al Hassan’s early release would give rise to significant social instability if released to Mali (rule 223(c) of the Rules), also taking into account that this level of risk is unclear and difficult to 173 predict. As a result, the Prosecutor does not oppose Mr Al Hassan’s reduction of 174 sentence resulting in his release.

100 According to the LRVs, the victims object to a reduction of the sentence of 175 Mr Al Hassan. The LRVs further argue that, should the Panel grant the request for early release, all necessary safeguards to ensure the safety of the victims and affected communities have to be adopted, such as preventing Mr Al Hassan’s return to 176 Timbuktu. The LRVs further hold the view that, should such a release be granted, it may only become effective after Mr Al Hassan has sincerely and duly apologised to the 177 victims.

101 Mali is of the view that Mr Al Hassan’s short sentence can be served without reduction, which is important for criminals who are still active, but also reassures the 178 victims.

2 Determination of the Panel 102. The Panel recalls that “the presence of at least one factor in favour of reduction is a prerequisite to the Panel exercising its discretion to reduce a sentence”. 179 Given the discretionary nature of a decision on reduction of sentence, the presence of one or more factors in favour of reduction does not mean that a sentence will be reduced. Similarly, the presence of one or more factors weighing against a reduction of sentence 180 does not mean that a panel is precluded from reducing a sentence.

173 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 48. 174 Prosecutor Submissions , para. 48. 175 LRV Submissions , para. 45. 176 LRV Submissions , para. 46. 177 LRV Submissions , para. 47. 178 Mali Observations , p. 4. 179 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 75. See also Lubanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 22. 180 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 75. See also Lubanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 22. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 32/37

103 The Panel has fully considered the circumstances pertaining to each factor listed in article 110(4) of the Statute and rule 223 of the Rules as set out in the relevant sections of the present decision.

104 In the view of the Panel, even though Mr Al Hassan had sought to exclude the statements he previously provided to the Prosecutor’s investigators and subsequently challenged the weight to be attached to them, he exhibited a considerable degree of willingness to cooperate with the Court by virtue of his decision not to appeal his sentence and to withdraw his appeal, as well as his offer to provide assistance in the reparations proceedings (article 110(4)(a) of the Statute). He also demonstrated that, to a certain extent, he has dissociated himself from the crimes for which he was convicted on account of his expressions of remorse and apologies, even though the Trial Chamber had rejected his previous statement and he provided the two statements before the Panel only following the conclusion of his trial (rule 223(a) of the Rules). The Panel also finds that a significant change in Mr Al Hassan’s individual circumstances has been established (rule 223(e) of the Rules), and therefore concludes that this factor is present.

105 The Panel further finds that the information received does not allow it to specifically determine whether there is a prospect of resocialization and successful resettlement (rule 223(b) of the Rules). The reason is that the information at its disposal in relation to this factor is limited, the situation on the ground is unstable, and Mr Al Hassan’s preferences are unsettled. Similarly, even though some information suggests that Mr Al Hassan has taken some action for the benefit of the victims, the majority of the victims express grave reservations in this regard and oppose the early release of Mr Al Hassan (rule 223(d) of the Rules). In addition, and more generally, the Panel has had regard to the number of victims affected by Mr Al Hassan’s crimes, as well as the psychological and symbolic impact the present review has on them in the 181 context of the procedural developments in the present case.

106 Lastly, the Panel considers that, although it is not possible to provide a definitive assessment in this regard, the statement by Mali and the views expressed by a significant number of victims indicate that there could be a risk of significant social instability should Mr Al Hassan be granted early release (rule 223(c) of the Rules). In

181 LRV Submissions , paras 10, 13, 30, 32, 35. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 33/37

this regard, the Panel has, in particular, taken into account that Mali, as the State that was directly affected by the crimes for which Mr Al Hassan has been convicted by the Chamber and Mr Al Hassan’s state of nationality, is in possession of direct information on the situation on the ground.

107 The Panel has assessed the aforementioned considerations as a whole. In this regard, it has attached considerable weight to Mr Al Hassan’s contribution to the efficient administration of justice and the potential impact his expression of regret may have in Mali, while remaining cognisant of the specific circumstances surrounding Mr Al Hassan’s willingness to cooperate, as well as his dissociation from his crimes. There has been a clear and significant change in Mr Al Hassan’s personal circumstances, pursuant to rule 223(e) of the Rules, and considerable weight has been attached to this factor. At the same time, the Panel attaches weight to the countervailing factor under rule 223(c) of the Rules in view of the possibility of significant social instability in the context of a generally volatile security context in Mali, as specified by the national authorities and a large number of victims. Taking these considerations together, the Panel finds that the circumstances militating in favour of sentence reduction outweigh the countervailing circumstances and are “sufficient to justify a reduction of sentence”. 182 Therefore, the Panel decides that it is appropriate to reduce Mr Al Hassan’s sentence pursuant to article 110(3) of the Statute. The Panel will address the extent of the reduction below.

108 Having made this determination, the Panel wishes to point out that it has given full consideration to the views of the victims and their interests in the present proceedings. It remains acutely aware of the extent of the pain and suffering experienced by the victims as a result of the grave crimes for which Mr Al Hassan has been finally convicted by the Court, as well as the potential impact the early release of Mr Al Hassan may have. In this respect, the Panel clarifies that the present decision was not taken with a view to exacerbating the victims’ concerns. It rather reflects its aforementioned duty to serve the interests of justice by ensuring a realistic prospect of resocialization for the sentenced person, while also taking into account the concerns of

182 See article 110(4)(c) of the Statute. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 34/37

victims and of the state of resettlement, in the hope of ultimately contributing to the healing of the affected communities.

IV. DISPOSITION

109 Having decided that it is appropriate to reduce Mr Al Hassan’s sentence, the Panel will now address the question of the extent of the reduction. In this respect, the Panel recalls that “[u]nder the Court’s legal framework, the two-third threshold serves as a 183 trigger mechanism for the commencement of the sentence review”. Consequently, any possible reduction can only be applied to the remaining one third of the sentence. The information presented in the context of each specific sentence review proceeding will determine the appropriate extent of any reduction.

110 In the present sentence review, the Panel recalls that Mr Al Hassan was sentenced to a term of 10 years imprisonment and that 28 November 2024 marked the two thirds threshold of time served. Thus, in the absence of any reduction, Mr Al Hassan would complete his sentence on 28 March 2028. The Panel considers that the extent of the reduction of sentence cannot be applied to the entirety of Mr Al Hassan’s remaining sentence. Balancing all relevant considerations, the Panel is of the view that a reduction of 12 months is appropriate. Such a reduction accords with the principle of proportionality in the balance to be struck between the specific circumstances of this sentence review as detailed above, together with the views expressed by Mali and a significant number of victims. Accordingly, the Panel reduces Mr Al Hassan’s sentence and sets the date for the completion of his sentence to 28 March 2027.

111 Having completed the review of Mr Al Hassan’s sentence and found that his sentence should be reduced, as set out above, and taking into account the Urgent Request, the Panel instructs the Registry, in accordance with its general duties pursuant to rule 20(1)(b) of the Rules, to provide support and assistance to the Defence in its efforts to identify a State to which Mr Al Hassan can enter following the completion of his sentence.

183 Al Mahdi Sentence Review Decision , para. 76. See also Lubanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 27; Katanga Sentence Review Decision , para. 113. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 35/37

184 112. Lastly, the Panel notes the transmission of the document referred to above. Considering the response provided by the Registry further to a request for clarification by the Presiding Judge, the Panel concludes that the information contained therein is not relevant to the sentence review proceedings. The Registry is instructed to liaise with the information provider for the purposes of facilitating either a reclassification or a redacted version of the document, as appropriate, that can be made accessible to the parties and participants.

V. APPROPRIATE RELIEF

113 Pursuant to the review conducted under article 110(3) of the Statute, Mr Al Hassan’s original sentence is reduced by 12 months. The date of completion of Mr Al Hassan’s sentence is set to 28 March 2027.

114 The Registrar is instructed to:

a. provide support and assistance to the Defence in its efforts to identify a State to which Mr Al Hassan can enter following the completion of his sentence; and

b. liaise with the information provider of the document specified at paragraph 17 of the present decision, for the purposes of facilitating either a reclassification or a redacted version of said document.

184 See paragraph 1717 above. No: ICC-01/12-01/18 36/37

_____________________________ Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza Presiding Judge

_____________________________ _____________________________ Judge Gocha Lordkipanidze Judge Erdenebalsuren Damdin

rd Dated this 23 day of July 2025 At The Hague, The Netherlands

No: ICC-01/12-01/18 37/37