The sixth pre-trial hearing took place on June 17, 2025. The defendant, represented by counsel and assisted by an interpreter, was present. The session focused on the case’s planning and three motions filed by the defense: adding new evidence, conducting additional witness hearings and a site visit in Syria, and suspending pre-trial detention.

The court announced that the substantive hearing, initially planned for November 2025, would likely be delayed to early 2026 due to the complexity of the investigation and scheduling constraints. The prosecution confirmed it was in the process of obtaining relevant documents from a German case but noted delays in finalizing the witness list. The defense expressed concern over this delay, as it affects their preparation.

The defense requested the addition of a Dutch immigration interview, arguing it could undermine a witness’s credibility. The prosecution called it irrelevant and speculative. The court ultimately rejected this request.

Next, the defense again sought to hear witnesses in Syria (in person or remotely) and conduct a site visit. They cited prior cases in which alternative methods (e.g. social media outreach) had been used in countries like Afghanistan and Somalia. The prosecution opposed this, citing sovereignty concerns and the lack of legal cooperation with Syria. The court agreed with the prosecution and denied both the witness hearing and site visit requests.

The defense also argued for the suspension of pre-trial detention, citing weak evidence, inconsistent witness testimony, and the hardship experienced by the suspect’s family. They claimed there was no longer a risk of collusion and invoked ECHR case law on the excessive duration of detention. They proposed alternatives like house arrest.

The prosecution countered that the suspect faces serious charges, including a leadership role in IS’s internal security service (AMNI), and that several key witnesses still needed to be heard. Releasing the suspect, they argued, would damage public confidence in the justice system.

After a short adjournment, the court rejected all three defense motions. It found the immigration interview irrelevant, upheld the impossibility of investigation in Syria, and ruled that the ongoing investigation and seriousness of the charges justified continued pre-trial detention. The court concluded that the suspect’s release would undermine the “geschokte rechtsorde” (shocked legal order).

The next pre-trial hearing is set for 11 September 2025. A substantive hearing is not expected before early 2026.

A pre-trial hearing in the Arkel case took place at 10:00 AM at the Schiphol Judicial Complex, with the suspect, defense counsel, and an interpreter present.

The hearing focused mainly on two procedural matters: the ongoing investigation and the defense’s request to suspend the suspect’s pre-trial detention. The presiding judge also inquired about the status of the indictment. The prosecution indicated that the indictment would likely be amended following further witness testimonies, but only regarding the form of the suspect’s alleged participation, not the substance of the charges.

The investigating judge reported that several new documents had been added to the case file recently, including a memorandum summarizing outstanding investigative requests. Six additional witnesses remain under investigation, three have been located, two are presumed deceased, and one remains missing. The prosecution also plans to add a report describing a photograph of the ISIS office where the suspect allegedly worked. The defense requested an additional witness be heard. The court discussed German case files from a related investigation; the prosecution is actively working to obtain relevant witness testimony documents and assured the defense would have access once received.

The defense requested suspension of the suspect’s pre-trial detention, arguing that delays caused by outstanding investigations, such as witness hearings, a site visit in Syria, and international legal assistance requests, would likely postpone the substantive hearing originally scheduled for November 2025. Citing European Court of Human Rights case law, the defense argued that the suspect’s detention, which has lasted two and a half years, was becoming unreasonable. They stressed the personal toll on the suspect and his family, noting limited contact with his young son and the negative effects on his wife and daughter. They also argued there was no flight risk or risk of reoffending, given the context-specific nature of the alleged crimes, and that detention impeded case preparation due to prison restrictions.

The prosecution opposed the suspension, disputing the likelihood of hearing delays and noting diplomatic and legal hurdles, such as the lack of formal relations with Syrian authorities and unresponsiveness from Turkey, hampering the investigation. They acknowledged the suspect’s personal hardships but maintained these did not outweigh the legal grounds for detention. The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of the charges and the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation.

After a brief recess, the court ruled. It granted the defense’s request to hear an additional witness but denied the suspension of pre-trial detention. The court recognized the burden on the suspect and his family but stressed the complexity and seriousness of the case, the ongoing investigative needs, and the importance of preventing interference with the process. The court found that suspending detention could jeopardize these interests.

The next pre-trial hearing is scheduled for 17 June 2025, where the final charges will be addressed.

On the 3rd of February 2025 at 10:00 a.m., a procedural hearing in the Lech investigation took place at the Rotterdam District Court. The defendant was present. 

The prosecution submitted new documents and announced an expansion of the charges. These included membership in ISIS and the commission of international crimes such as murder, torture, and arbitrary detention. The prosecution stated that the case file was not yet complete, as several suspects still needed to be heard.

The defence referred to a letter submitted earlier and reiterated its request to investigate two witnesses who may already be deceased, asking that this be assigned to the investigating judge. The defence also requested access to investigation files from Germany relating to similar case facts, and argued that the rechter-commissaris should officially attempt to obtain these documents.

In addition, the defence submitted a request for the suspension of pre-trial detention. They highlighted that the defendant had now been in custody for two years under a strict regime in the terrorism unit in Vught. Personal circumstances were also discussed in detail, including the family’s financial difficulties, the psychological issues of the defendant’s daughter, and the fact that the defendant had not yet seen his newborn son. The defence cited a comparable case in which a suspect was released, and proposed alternatives such as electronic monitoring or nighttime house arrest.

The prosecution agreed to refer the witness matter to the rechter-commissaris and expressed willingness to consult German authorities regarding the requested files. However, they noted that such material would initially be made available for inspection only. On the issue of pre-trial detention, the prosecution strongly opposed release. While acknowledging the personal challenges, they argued that the seriousness of the charges, particularly participation in international crimes, must take precedence.

The court made the following decisions: the investigation would be referred to the rechter-commissaris to determine the availability of the two witnesses, and access to the German files was granted, with the prosecution tasked to facilitate this. The request to suspend pre-trial detention was denied, as the severity of the alleged offences outweighed the personal circumstances of the defendant.

The next pro forma hearing was scheduled for April 14, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., at the Schiphol Complex in Amsterdam. The court emphasised the importance of swift progress and instructed that the remaining investigations should be completed as soon as possible.

A pre-trial hearing was held on August 30, 2024, at the District Court of Rotterdam in the Arkel case, which involves allegations of international crimes. The accused was not present. Three judges, the defense counsel, and the prosecution attended.

The defense raised two main issues: the excessive duration of pre-trial detention, now over 1.5 years, and the use of allegedly unreliable evidence. Arguing that the investigation had not produced any direct link to the suspect and that no substantive hearing was scheduled, the defense requested the case be dismissed. They criticized the heavy reliance on anonymous and contradictory witness statements, which they described as gossip-like and possibly influenced by internal conflicts.

The defense submitted two investigative requests: hear a new witness to assess the reliability of key testimony, and request further verification from the FBI regarding documents allegedly found near Deir-ez-Zor, which, according to an expert, might be forged due to inconsistencies in language and date formats compared to verified ISIS documents. They argued that pursuing this would significantly prolong the investigation, further impacting the suspect and his family, and therefore requested acquittal.

The prosecution objected to all requests. They argued the defense’s claims were speculative and maintained that the investigation should conclude by the end of 2024. They emphasized the reliability of the documents, purportedly seized directly by the U.S. military, and stressed that there is no consistent “ISIS language,” making forgery claims unfounded. The prosecution also underscored the seriousness of the charges and the importance of continuing pre-trial detention.

After deliberation, the court denied all of the defense’s requests, including the motion to hear a new witness and the FBI inquiry, finding them insufficiently substantiated. The request to end pre-trial detention was also denied. The court acknowledged the complex nature of the investigation but required the case file to be completed by the end of 2024.

The next hearing is scheduled for November 13, 2024, at 10:15 a.m. in the District Court of Rotterdam.

Prosecutor Blom reported regarding the status of the investigation that the police investigation is not yet complete. In fact, several witnesses still need to be heard in the coming weeks. This is due to the fact that the police investigation is back in full swing after new information has been obtained regarding alleged interrogations by the suspect and subsequent torture in the context of his alleged position with ISIS.

This means there is still much investigation to be done. But the prosecution’s approach is still to have the final dossier ready by the end of the year at the latest, depending on circumstances.

Depending on the outcome of the current investigation, the indictment will be amended to include additional accusations next to the current one (membership in a terrorist/ criminal organization). The defense will likely have additional investigation requests as well.

A substantive hearing is not to be expected before the end of 2024, more likely early 2025.

During the pretrial hearing on 8th March 2024, the judge announced that this session would focus on adding new documents to the case file, namely anonymized witness statements by the defence. 

Firstly, the defence and prosecution discussed the ongoing investigation. The prosecutor sent an email to the parties, clarifying the direction of investigation. It stated that the investigation will most likely be centred around the allegations of participation in a criminal organisation and executions as war crimes and crimes against humanity, and will rely heavily on witness testimonies. The investigation will likely take six more months to finalise the case file, which will include using specific investigation methods, such as voice recognition technology. 

Next, defence lawyer Michiel Pestman explained the defence motion to add anonymized witness statements to the case file. He argued that in general witnesses must be protected throughout the investigation, when they are in Syria, where they could be brought in difficulty and danger when they testify. He added that the defense took their statements anonymously to guarantee a measure of personal safety for these witnesses. The prosecutor noted that it does work with anonymous witnesses, but that they do not reside in Syria. The defence then stressed that there must be transparency regarding the identities of witnesses, while simultaneously it must be ensured that their names are not disclosed to the public, in order to ensure the witnesses’ safety. The prosecution contested that if the witnesses reside in Syria, they are likely facing security threats as they are living under an authoritarian regime. Their testimonies should not be added to the case file as the witnesses’ security can never be fully guaranteed. In response, the defence stated that each party’s right to find and question witnesses and present testimonies must absolutely be ensured to guarantee the fundamental defence rights to a fair trial. Therefore, the prosecutors and judges need to cooperate to solve this issue and to allow for ways for the defence to find witnesses to present the defence’s case. The defence then offered to have those anonymised witness testimonies added to the file but that they should only be accessible by the prosecution and not added to the general case file. 

Additionally, the defense argued that the prosecutors too easily quote the impossibility to violate Syria’s sovereignty and the lack of a mutual legal assistance agreement with Syria, as reasons for excluding witnesses who are in Syria. Defence lawyer Pestman cited previous cases involving similar witness situations with regard to Rwanda, Afghanistan and Somalia, and that in these situations the parties found ways to creatively solve the issue of witness protection and security. In Afghanistan for example, the prosecutor issued an ad-hoc legal assistance agreement in the embassy of Kabul. In Somalia, the defense traveled to Mogadishu and recorded testimonies on video, so that the investigating judge and prosecutor could revise them. The defence then suggested a solution, namely to involve an expert to come up with a solution, an independent person that can advise how to deal with (defence) witnesses who are located in Syria. This was no formal request yet, but rather just a sharing of ideas and discussion. The defence lawyer would even already have someone in mind. 

The judge was irritated by the latter, questioning this expert’s independence if the defence already had them in mind, and stated that this discussion should be postponed, as this session was dedicated to discussing the additional testimony documents for the case file. The defence noted that it is primarily their responsibility to ensure the security of their witnesses. In response, the prosecutor highlighted the witnesses’ vulnerability due to the fact that both the regime and the political opposition might both be threatening them. The prosecutor stressed the need for extreme caution when involving witnesses in Syria, but also agreed to assist in finding a solution to this complex issue and question. However, the prosecutor clearly rejected the request to add anonymized statements to be accessed only by the prosecution for several reasons. Firstly, judges would not have access to these statements, rendering them irrelevant for the case as the (pretrial) judges could not test their evidentiary value. Additionally, the limited anonymization cannot guarantee the personal security of witnesses, particularly those located in Syria. The defense’s argument for equality of arms was countered by the fact that neither the prosecutor nor the police have unrestricted access to witnesses in Syria. 

The judges left the courtroom to consider the arguments for and against the defence motion to add these anonymized witness statements, including from witnesses in Syria. In conclusion, the court decided that there is a fundamental legal need for the documents to be added in the interest of fair trial principles, even when there is a major concern about the personal security of the witnesses. However, the defence was directed to be more careful with anonymising statements. Additionally, the court directed that any statements involving witness names by either prosecution or defence, may be discussed only behind closed doors to guarantee the safety of the witnesses and avoid identity leaks. 

The police and prosecutor plan to have their investigation file complete by the end of this year, after which it can be presented to the court and the trial date can be set, likely for the first quarter of 2025. The accused remains in pre-trial detention with the next pre-trial hearing scheduled for 4 June 2024 at 10am at the District Court of Rotterdam.