True. In the NI case the UK claimed those were inhabitants of UK land, it would be bad propaganda to decide they weren't after all. The relevant claim to victim she has is that the whole thing had been set in motion by Blair, Bush and their acolytes. Those were perpetrators, seeded the disaster in those lands, and got away with it. This one was, even if a whole generation removed from the origin of the situation, a victim of the plan to destroy the whole region. A plan that was continued, remember the supply of weapons to "moderate rebels" pretending those weren't going to these fanatics. There are more perpetrators, some still in office. That's probably the main reason the government of the UK will rather have her die far away than have take her to court for war crimes. Or whatever crimes. There's other reason though: no jurisdiction. Though certain countries don't care about jurisdiction and pretend their laws have international reach. The crimes happened in Syria and Iraq, and I'm not sure they qualify as war crimes, or under some other heading. The criminals should be judged there, according to relevant law there. And if Syria or Iraq want to dump the foreign ones back in the places that promoted the war there... it's their payback.