The seventh pre-trial hearing in the Druten case commenced on July 14, 14:00 in the District Court of The Hague. The suspect was present, represented by counsel and assisted by an interpreter. 

The hearing began with the court addressing a newly added charge against the suspect. It then turned to the current status of the investigation and the steps ahead. The judges also considered requests filed by the victims’ lawyers and discussed whether the suspect should remain in pre-trial detention.

The Public Prosecutor, relying on a recent witness statement, requested the inclusion of a new allegation. According to this testimony, during the suspect’s service with the NDF, he allegedly beat a detainee, forced him to undress, and left him without food or water in a cold isolation cell. The Prosecution qualifies these acts as torture and sexual violence, amounting to a crime against humanity.

The parties then discussed further additions to the case file. Several new witness statements have recently been included, as well as a suspected NDF distribution list concerning rifles, in which the suspect’s name appears. Other aspects of the investigation are still ongoing — such as the examination of the suspect’s phone card — and have therefore only been provisionally added to the file. 

Regarding the requests from the victim’s lawyers, the court acknowledged receiving the finalized claims on behalf of several victims. It noted that some witnesses still need to be heard by the investigating judge, with additional claims from other witnesses expected to follow in line with current submissions. The defense stressed that claims by the injured parties should be evaluated under Syrian law rather than Dutch law. There was a debate about whether an expert in Syrian law should be appointed. The victim’s lawyers mentioned they already have reports on Syrian law from the Vescher case and an additional report from the Banning investigation, suggesting these might be enough for the current proceedings. The court confirmed that written submissions for the pro forma hearing in October will go ahead, and it will later decide whether an expert on Syrian law is needed.

The hearing then proceeded with the question of pre-trial detention and the defense’s suspension request. The Prosecutor requested that the suspect remain in custody, with the new charge as an additional legal basis. It cited evidence supporting the new charge and held that, regarding the other allegations, serious objections had already been established, and the suspicions have since increased.  Evidence cited by the Prosecutor includes statements from detainees and photographs, as well as a weapons list bearing the suspect’s name, with one weapon matching a firearm shown in a photo with his children. A new identification has also been made, and the gravity of allegations has increased based on the new testimony, which indicates that the suspect was seen at a detention center and forced someone to participate in the torture of another person.

The defense argued that the new charge does not justify continued detention since it does not add to the accusation of torture. They also claimed that the reasonable time limit for pre-trial detention has been surpassed by three months, and that the most serious charges lack sufficient evidence. They contested specific claims, citing inconsistencies in witness statements and forensic findings. The defense emphasized that, according to principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, detention should be temporary, limited, and only used when no less severe alternatives exist. They also challenged the sexual assault allegations, asserting that if proven, the acts described might constitute abuse or humiliation, but not sexual acts, and thus should not justify continued detention. The defense proposed suspension under strict conditions. 

Upon resumption, the Prosecution responded to the defense’s claims, emphasizing that the sexual offenses are not the only or most serious allegations; the case involves numerous grave crimes affecting nine victims, all supported by serious objections. The prosecution argued that the duration of pre-trial detention is justified given the severity of the charges, the risk of collusion, and the need to protect the legal order. The Prosecution maintained that the alleged conduct, including kicking a naked person, qualifies as acts of a sexual nature under international tribunal jurisprudence, which adopts a broad definition encompassing exposure, lack of consent, and physical violation. On the possibility of suspending pre-trial detention, the Prosecution indicated that it is not under consideration at this time, stressing the seriousness of the crimes and the ongoing protection of the legal order. 

Replying to the Judge’s question, the suspect reported that his health is deteriorating and that he is not adequately cared for in detention, noting language barriers and psychological difficulties that sometimes affect his communication.  

The Court decided that while the sexual violence allegation will require further assessment during the substantive trial, the current evidence, including the context of the suspect’s actions during detention, was deemed sufficient to establish serious grounds for pre-trial detention. The court emphasized the ongoing risk to the legal order and the continuation of police investigations, both regarding the new charges and the existing ones. In response to the defense’s request for suspension of detention, the court acknowledged the prolonged 19-month pre-trial detention and noted that the suspect’s personal interests must be weighed against the prosecutorial interest. The court affirmed that it will continue to review this balance regularly, but at present, the investigative grounds outweigh the suspect’s personal interests.

The next pro forma hearing is scheduled for Monday, October 6, at 9:30 AM.

The sixth pre-trial hearing in the Druten case was held on April 15, 2025, at the District Court of The Hague. The suspect was absent due to illness and remains in pre-trial detention.

The hearing focused on five main topics: updates to the case file, the status and planning of the investigation, the handling of written submissions, the prosecution’s motion to amend the indictment and extend detention, and the defense’s motion to suspend pre-trial detention.

New materials were added to the case file, including a psychiatric report from the Pieter Baan Centre. The report found no psychological disorder but refrained from assessing recidivism risk or the suspect’s mental state during the alleged crimes. Other additions include translated immigration interviews, reports by the investigating judge, and evidence linking the suspect to the Syrian National Defence Forces, including photos, Syrian security documents, and statements referencing two missing sons of a Syrian witness.

The investigation remains ongoing. Several witness interviews have yet to be conducted, and a decision is still pending on the appointment of a cultural anthropologist. An appeal regarding the admissibility of reinstated charges remains before the Court of Appeal, with a hearing scheduled for July 9, 2025. The prosecution plans to submit the completed case file before the next hearing on July 14, 2025. A substantive hearing is expected no earlier than 2026 due to the appointment of a new investigating judge and the court’s broader caseload.

The counsel for victims submitted preliminary civil claims, mainly concerning non-material damages such as unlawful detention, physical abuse, and psychological harm. The court encouraged the submission of formal claims before the next hearing and confirmed that Syrian law will apply unless both parties jointly agree to use Dutch law. The victims’ counsel indicated openness to Dutch law but noted that, if Syrian law is applied, an expert should be appointed to clarify its content.

The prosecution requested to amend the indictment by adding new charges based on recent documents and witness testimony and to extend detention accordingly. The prosecution argued that serious suspicions remain and that investigative grounds still justify pre-trial detention.

The defense opposed the amendment and sought suspension of detention, citing the suspect’s deteriorating health, the ongoing nature of the investigation, and concerns about the credibility of key witnesses. The defense argued that detention had exceeded a reasonable timeframe and that some testimonies showed signs of contamination or bias.

After deliberation, the court approved the amended indictment and ordered continued pre-trial detention. The court acknowledged the burden of extended detention but found no extraordinary circumstances justifying release, given the seriousness of the charges and the risk of collusion. The case involves nineteen serious offenses, many of which have international implications. The next pre-trial hearing is scheduled for July 14, 2025.

The fifth pre-trial hearing in the Druten case was held on February 17, 2025, at the District Court of The Hague. The accused, who remains in pre-trial detention on charges related to international crimes allegedly committed during the Syrian conflict, was present during the hearing.

A central issue addressed during the session was the defense’s motion to strike specific allegations based on procedural inadmissibility. The defense argued that the prosecution had explicitly stated three months earlier that it would not include certain witness-based accusations in the final indictment. This commitment, according to the defense, created a legitimate expectation that the defendant would not be prosecuted on those grounds. The prosecution later attempted to reinstate the charges, citing a shift in the victim’s security circumstances following the fall of the Assad regime.

In its argument, the defense emphasized that the prosecution’s prior position was both clear and definitive, and thus the attempt to reintroduce the accusations violated procedural fairness. This position was supported with extensive references to Dutch case law. Furthermore, the defense noted that the accused had been kept in prolonged uncertainty regarding these charges, which had negatively affected his mental state. The defendant expressed that the interrogation process had left him distressed and humiliated, making him reluctant to further elaborate on his previous statements.

After deliberation, the court ruled in favor of the defense. It concluded that the prosecution’s earlier declaration had indeed created a legitimate expectation, and that the subsequent reversal lacked legal justification. As a result, the court declared the prosecution inadmissible on this point, and the contested witness accusations will be excluded from the case going forward.

The hearing also addressed procedural requests submitted by legal representatives of the applicants/survivors. These included a request for the court to proactively engage with relevant Syrian law and jurisprudence prior to the substantive hearings, in order to prevent delays. The applicants’ counsel also called for a provisional timeline to ensure greater transparency and clarity for all parties.

Finally, the court instructed the defense to collaborate with the investigating judge in preparing initial witness questions. This effort aims to streamline the witness process and reduce the risk of secondary victimization through repeated testimony.

The next hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 15, 2025, at the District Court of The Hague.

The suspect was present at this pretrial hearing, which started at 10:00 hrs. The judge stated that additional evidence was recently added to the dossier, and inquired the parties’ positions.

The Prosecutor argued that the investigation was not yet completed. She emphasized the need for more witnesses, digital evidence, and contextual reports.

Similarly to the prosecution, the defence also called for further investigation, including hearing more witnesses.They questioned the reliability of current witnesses, citing that the information they provided consisted of generally known facts, which are less relevant. As an example, the defence lawyer described how the police had investigated whether certain information was truthful, to which a witness apparently responded that it was common knowledge spread on Telegram group chats. The defence predicted to be able to presenta more witnesses within two weeks.
Regarding the suspect’s provisional detention, the defence furthermore argued that the suspect has been detained for seven months already, which is disproportionate and unreasonable in their view. They described it as an extreme and unjustified delay, and argued that the suspect was struggling mentally. However, the suspect then provided a statement himself, expressing a desire to avoid being perceived as mentally unstable by the court.

The judge assured that the court would consider the defence’s concerns. The judge then asked the suspect how he was doing, to which he responded that he regularly meets with a psychologist, nurse, and his defence lawyer.

The judge concluded by stating that the ongoing investigation was crucial and that the court’s stance to allow the investigation to continue would remain unchanged, even when the investigation takes a long time. No concessions were and will be made given the gravity of the crimes involved.

The next session is scheduled for 10 September 10 2024, 10:00 hrs, at the District Court of The Hague.

The hearing was very short and solely centred around the question whether the accused, who was not present, can be diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While both the prosecutor and the defence did not deem this necessary, the court decided to send the accused to the Pieter Baan Centrum, a specialised psychological centre in the Netherlands to get their advice on this question.

The accused remains in pre-trial detention as the investigation into the case by the Dutch war crimes unit and prosecutors office continues, as the possible charges are extremely serious.

The next pre trial hearing is scheduled for 18 June 2024 at 10 AM at the District Court of The Hague. A trial and ensuing decision is not expected until later this year, but more likely sometime in 2025.