The self-administration's efforts to bring justice to IS victims are largely focused on detaining the group's affiliates and, when possible, charging them with terrorism offences. To that end, local counter-terrorism courts were set up to prosecute thousands of locally-recruited IS members who are in custody.
Mounting challenges and concerns
On top of concerns regarding due process — particularly the fact that suspects are not allowed representation by defence lawyers — these counter-terrorism courts are seriously understaffed and limited in number. At the current rate of prosecutions, it would probably take more than a decade to process the cases of all of the IS suspects in detention.
Additionally, court proceedings take place behind closed doors and are not disclosed to the public. This lack of transparency has caused distress among many victims who have witnessed IS members being released without publicly confessing to their guilt.
Another concern is that the local administration is holding tens of thousands of civilians with ties to IS or its members in camps scattered across the north east. Most of them are women and children who are not officially under arrest, but, in reality, they are being detained in the camps with no clear strategy on how to deal with them.
Read more: Visit to IS camp stark reminder of hidden but ever-present terrorist threat
More broadly, the current counter-terrorism approach has largely failed to address the full range of crimes committed by IS. This is because there are still no official mechanisms or entities to obtain and process information from the families of victims.
Hence, counter-terrorism courts are mainly focusing on establishing whether IS members were fighters in order to establish their guilt or innocence, but there is no clear method of highlighting the personal responsibility of individuals for war crimes or crimes against humanity.
These courts also do not allow victims to file charges for crimes such as rape, theft and kidnapping or to provide evidence against IS members.
Alternative mechanisms
To overcome the limitations of this counter-terrorism framework, the Kurdish self-administration could use transitional justice mechanisms to establish accountability for IS crimes and help local communities heal.
The formation of community-led fact-finding commissions could help to document and gather evidence about the full range of IS crimes, including individual responsibility. The commissions could also complement counter-terrorism trials by sharing findings with relevant local authorities and encouraging victims to participate in proceedings.
Besides, the commissions could consult with residents of the region on alternative paths to justice, such as monetary compensation and public apologies, to bring about a sense of closure to the victims.
