The trial of six French nationals in Baghdad for Islamic State membership carries a grave risk of arbitrary execution and trial rights violations.

Given Iraq's history of coerced confessions, summary proceedings, torture, and non-refoulement violations, their transfer from northeastern Syria under US and Iraqi supervision directly threatens the rule of law. Furthermore, the possibility of capital punishment in these proceedings raises serious concerns about Iraq's compliance with its international human rights obligations and its commitment to upholding global legal standards.

Background

On 20 September 2026, the Central Criminal Court in Baghdad opened proceedings against six French nationals under Anti-Terrorism Law No. 13 of 2005. A member of the Supreme Judicial Council stated that the defendants could face the death penalty if convicted of crimes against Iraq and Iraqis. The defendants appeared in yellow prison uniforms under special forces guard. The judge adjourned the hearing until 5 October to allow defense lawyers to review the case files. French Embassy representatives attended. The identities of the defendants and evidence against them have not been publicly disclosed, and no verdict has been issued.

The six are among 47 French nationals transferred from prisons in northeastern Syria to Iraq in an operation supervised by United States forces and Iraqi authorities. In February 2026, around 5,700 detainees were transferred to Iraq, including Iraqis, Syrians, and nationals of other countries. Many had spent years in detention without effective judicial review or a genuine opportunity to challenge the legal basis of their detention. Transfers undertaken despite substantial grounds for believing that detainees could face torture raise serious non-refoulement concerns.

The 2019 trials of French nationals in Iraq provide an important context. Defendants reported torture and coerced confessions, including one account of being forced to sign an Arabic statement he could not read. Seven French nationals were sentenced to death within days. Previous terrorism cases have also raised concerns over contested confessions, secret informants, inadequate legal representation, and brief proceedings that failed to properly examine torture allegations. These precedents do not establish violations in the current proceedings, but they underscore the need for independent scrutiny.

Institutional Position

Accountability for ISIS crimes must establish individual criminal responsibility through fair proceedings, not rely on broad counter-terrorism charges or association with an armed group. Anti-Terrorism Law No. 13 of 2005 contains expansive provisions and, under Article 4, permits the death penalty for perpetrators, accomplices, instigators, funders, and assistants in terrorist acts. Proceedings must therefore establish the specific conduct, role, intent, and harm attributable to each defendant rather than treating membership or association as sufficient grounds for criminal responsibility.

Iraq also has yet to comprehensively incorporate genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes into national law, despite extensive evidence gathered by the United Nations Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da’esh/ISIL (UNITAD). UNITAD concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that ISIS committed genocide against the Yazidis, as well as war crimes and crimes against humanity against other Iraqi communities. Proceedings limited to terrorist-organization membership risk failing to establish who planned, ordered, and carried out specific crimes, including murder, sexual slavery, torture, and forced displacement.

The death penalty is irreversible. Where proceedings involve allegations of torture, coerced confessions, inadequate defense representation, or insufficient judicial scrutiny, an execution following an unfair trial can constitute an arbitrary deprivation of life. International law requires any case involving the death penalty to meet the strictest fair-trial guarantees.

France should not wait until after convictions to object to executions. It should seek binding assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out, ensure access to independent counsel and confidential medical examinations, and pursue the return of individuals who cannot be guaranteed a fair trial, particularly those who were children at the time of the alleged offences.

Applicable Legal Framework

The documented concerns engage the Iraqi Constitution and Articles 6, 7, 9, and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), protecting the right to life, prohibiting torture and arbitrary detention, and guaranteeing a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. Transfers to Iraq where there are substantial grounds to believe that a person would face torture are inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the principle of non-refoulement. Reliance on coerced confessions and failure to investigate torture allegations also engage CAT Articles 12, 13, and 15. Individuals who were children at the time of the alleged offences must be treated in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

Demands Aligned with International Human Rights Principles

Women Journalists Without Chains

Geneva, Switzerland — September 21, 2026