At the pro forma hearing held on 10 February at 10:00 before the District Court of The Hague, the defence’s investigative requests were addressed within the context of the current status of the investigation. The hearing further concerned the anticipated civil claims of the injured parties, a brief discussion of the defendant’s pre-trial detention, and the further procedural planning of the case.

Present at the hearing were representatives of the Public Prosecution Service, defence counsel Dölle, the legal representative of the injured parties, and the defendant.

Status of the Investigation
The Court opened the hearing with an update on the status of the investigation and the most recent additions to the case file. The Public Prosecutor first submitted a request to extend the indictment.

The Court then noted that approximately ten pages had been added to the dossier. The additions include, among other things, the interview of a witness, four video recordings of walking routes, and four video recordings of the stadium. In addition, a report of the investigating judge has been added to the case file, as well as information concerning supplementary expert research. The report of the site inspection is expected to be finalised later this week.

Finally, the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that statements by witnesses have already been circulated among the parties, that two additional witnesses are to be heard later this week, and that four further witnesses are scheduled to be heard during the rogatory mission planned for March.

Defence Investigative Requests
The defence presented its investigative requests. Defence counsel stated that she would not submit a renewed request concerning pre-trial detention, as her objections remained unchanged from the previous pro forma hearing in December and had already been rejected by the Court. She therefore limited her submissions to other investigative requests.

The defence requested the hearing of two witnesses: witness X and witness Y. According to the defence, they could testify that the defendant was not involved in attack groups, that no weapons training took place, and that he, as a Tutsi in hiding, had been assisted by the defendant. Witness Y, the defence submitted, had been present at the distribution of looted goods and could testify as to which individuals were involved.

In addition, the defence requested the inclusion in the case file of a transcript of the Kwibuka podcast, addressing the course of the genocide in the region, as well as a written account of a conversation between an investigator and the sister of E. , who had conducted her own investigation into his alleged betrayal and death.

The defence further indicated that, in its view, consensus exists regarding the subjects for upcoming written submissions, namely:

• jurisdiction;
• the legal framework applicable to the offences charged; and
• all matters relating to the civil claims of the injured parties, including the applicable legal framework.

Position of the Public Prosecution Service
The Public Prosecution Service opposed the defence’s investigative requests. With respect to witness X, the prosecution argued that his potential testimony primarily concerns the murder of J., a fact not included in the indictment, and that the allegation that the defendant may have assisted individuals is not relevant to the assessment of the charges.

As regards witness Y, the prosecution noted that this witness had previously been rejected by the Court due to insufficient substantiation of relevance, and that it remains unclear when and where he was allegedly present at the distribution of goods. The prosecution therefore considered his observations insufficiently specific or relevant to contribute to the assessment of the charges.

The prosecution also objected to the inclusion of a transcript of the Kwibuka podcast and the written report concerning Efrem’s sister, arguing that their relevance to the indictment had not been sufficiently demonstrated.

Defence Reply
In response, the defence argued that the alleged events must be assessed in their proper context. The indictment includes allegations of plundering and destruction of property, which, according to the defence, were carried out by attack groups. The central question, therefore, is whether the defendant belonged to such groups. The defence further emphasised that the defendant is also suspected of co-perpetration of genocide, rendering certain witness statements directly relevant to the charges.

Prosecution Reply
The Public Prosecution Service maintained its opposition to hearing witness Y, stating that the defence appeared to place a disproportionate focus on the attack itself and to suggest that absence from an attack group would negate criminal responsibility.

With respect to witness X, the prosecution stated that if it were indeed the case that the witness had been present at the distribution of looted goods, this would constitute new information that could potentially be relevant. However, given that the investigation is in its final phase, a high threshold applies to the granting of further investigative requests. The prosecution therefore proposed an intermediate step, namely that the defence first submit a transcript of the preliminary interview conducted by the investigator. Only if that transcript demonstrates sufficient relevance could the hearing of witness X be reconsidered. At present, the request was rejected.

Civil Claims of the Injured Parties
The legal representative of the injured parties indicated that she expects to be able to submit civil claims within a foreseeable timeframe. If the applicable Rwandan legal framework permits the exercise of the Right to Speak, 20 May 2026 was identified as a feasible date. At present, two injured parties have expressed a wish to exercise this right, while the legal representative represents a total of ten injured parties.

Should the Right to Speak be legally available, the practical arrangements would be coordinated through the Public Prosecution Service and Victim Support (Slachtofferhulp). The Court noted that the exercise of this right may affect the substantive hearing and must therefore be communicated in a timely manner. In response to a question from the prosecution, the legal representative stated that she hopes to determine by the end of the month whether any injured parties wish to exercise the right to speak via video link, noting practical challenges including language barriers and the organisation of a live connection with Rwanda. The Court explained that live-streaming would require practical arrangements such as interpretation and therefore emphasised the importance of clarity in an early stage.

Court’s Ruling
The Court first ruled that there was no reason to lift or suspend the defendant’s pre-trial detention.

With regard to the investigative requests, the Court held that, at this advanced stage of the investigation, a higher threshold applies to the granting of such requests. The Court found that the defence had failed to sufficiently substantiate the relevance of hearing witness X and Y in relation to the charges. The relevance of adding the podcast transcript was considered insufficient, and the written report concerning E.’s sister was deemed too remote from the facts charged. Consequently, none of the defence’s investigative requests were granted.

As regards potential civil claims, the Court indicated that it would await their formal submission, after which the Public Prosecution Service and the defence would be given the opportunity to respond.

Planning
The next pro forma hearing has been scheduled for Friday, 24 April at 10:00, subject to the availability of the Public Prosecution Service, which indicated that it may seek to reschedule due to another major case the following day; any such request is to be communicated by email.

A series of pro forma and detention-related hearings were held in the criminal proceedings against a 64-year-old man who was arrested in February 2024 on suspicion of involvement in an attack and looting in Gatobotobo, Rwanda, during the 1994 genocide of the Tutsi’s and moderate Hutus. These hearings were procedural in nature and focused on the status of the investigation, outstanding investigative requests, witness-related matters, preparation for the substantive phase of the trial, and the defence request for suspension of pre-trial detention. No substantive examination of evidence took place.

Present at the hearings were representatives of the prosecution, defence counsel (Meester Dulle and Meester Van Straat), the legal representatives of the injured parties, experts from the probation service (reclassering), and the defendant.

The Court opened with a detailed overview of the current state of the case file. The dossier had been supplemented up to nearly item 48.04 and now included, inter alia, reorganised and paginated witness statements, including a revised statement by Jacques Enzi-Nimana; two additional witness statements taken by the TIM in November; records of intercepted telephone communications, confidential communications, and covert access to the defendant’s computer; a media dossier; and a ninth report of the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris) with appendices, including decisions on defence requests to hear witnesses.

The Court and prosecution discussed the most recent rogatory mission conducted in November, as well as future investigative travel to Rwanda. Additional rogatory trips were provisionally planned for early February and early March, with a further trip in mid-May reserved as a contingency. It was noted that such planning remains subject to practical uncertainties.

The prosecution stated that, as matters stood, the police investigation itself was complete and that there were no outstanding investigative steps on the part of the police. Some issues remained open at the level of the investigating judge, including amendments to the record of the site inspection (schouw), which the investigating judge would address. The prosecution also raised the question whether it would still be meaningful to hear the defendant once more, noting that such a step would only serve a purpose if the defendant were willing to make a statement.

The defence confirmed that an additional hearing of the defendant would only be meaningful if he were prepared to testify, and otherwise saw no reason for it. The defence further noted that one witness was being maintained as a reserve witness. Attention was drawn to outstanding responses from Professor Longman to additional questions posed through the investigating judge, which were expected imminently. The defence stressed the importance of receiving a definitive indictment as soon as possible in order to properly prepare for the substantive phase and to formulate targeted investigative requests.

A significant portion of the hearing concerned defence requests relating to witnesses and the addition of witness statements to the case file. The defence reiterated requests to hear several witnesses, including individuals previously rejected by the investigating judge, as well as a newly proposed witness described as the son of Emmanuel Sakindi and a direct neighbour of the defendant. According to the defence, this witness could provide first-hand observations regarding the defendant’s conduct, meetings held at his home, the absence of weapons, alleged plundering, and the context of Gacaca proceedings in which, according to the defence, false accusations against the defendant may have been made.

The defence also requested the hearing of witnesses Murekezi and Bonani, who had made incriminating statements, in order to test their accounts. In addition, the defence sought to add two TIM witness statements (Steven Semikabo and Gabriel Ndagishimana), which it characterised as exculpatory and relevant to the assessment of the reliability of other prosecution witnesses.

The prosecution opposed the addition of the TIM statements, arguing that these witnesses were not present at the core events, lacked direct knowledge, and that their statements were not reasonably relevant within the meaning of Dutch criminal procedural law. The prosecution also expressed doubts about their credibility. The prosecution did not object to hearing Murekezi and Bonani, but continued to oppose hearing the neighbour witness, arguing that the relevance of his observations and his proximity to the alleged crimes had not been sufficiently substantiated. With respect to Gacaca proceedings, the prosecution argued that their general functioning and evidentiary value are well known and that Gacaca materials do not constitute independent proof.

The defence maintained all its requests, emphasising that questions of credibility and relevance should be assessed by the Court and not pre-empted, and that alleged false accusations in Gacaca proceedings could bear on the reliability of later witness statements.

No final decisions on these witness requests are explicitly recorded in the provided transcript.

Injured Parties and Applicable Law

The hearings also addressed the preparation of civil claims by the injured parties and the applicable legal framework. Reference was made to correspondence from counsel for the injured parties concerning the application of Rwandan law rather than Dutch law. The Court proposed that the parties exchange written submissions on the applicable legal framework well in advance of the substantive hearings, potentially including expert input.

The defence indicated willingness to respond in writing but requested sufficient time, noting upcoming investigative travel and counsel’s temporary absence. The prosecution expressed a preference to respond after the defence. No binding deadlines were set during the hearing; the Court indicated that further coordination would take place outside the session.

Separately, the Court and counsel discussed practical timelines for the submission of final civil claims. A working arrangement was noted whereby definitive claims would be submitted approximately one month before the substantive hearings, subject to further practical adjustment once hearing dates were fixed.

A substantial and detailed part of the hearings concerned the defence request to suspend the defendant’s pre-trial detention. The Court noted that the defendant had by then been detained for approximately 674 days. A recent probation report was discussed, in which the probation service concluded that it could provide no or insufficient supervision if detention were suspended under the proposed conditions.

The probation expert explained that international contact and location bans could not be effectively monitored, that electronic monitoring would amount in practice to home detention and was considered ineffective in this context, and that digital monitoring of devices was highly limited, infrequent, and easily circumvented. The probation service further indicated that it lacked the authority to conduct in-depth digital inspections and questioned how the police could effectively perform such supervision.

The defence argued that continued detention was disproportionate given the length of pre-trial detention, the expected timing of the substantive hearings (envisaged for June 2026), and the defendant’s personal and psychological circumstances, including depressive episodes and trauma-related complaints. The defence emphasised the defendant’s stable life prior to detention, lack of criminogenic factors, and willingness to comply with extremely strict conditions, including severe restrictions on communication and movement.

The prosecution opposed suspension of detention, maintaining that serious objections and strong suspicions remained, supported by multiple incriminating witness statements, including recent TIM interviews. The prosecution argued that there remained a significant risk of collusion, particularly given that further witnesses were yet to be heard, and referred to intercepted communications in which the defendant allegedly discussed what others should declare. The prosecution also invoked the gravity of the alleged offences and the resulting disturbance of the legal order.

The defence disputed the existence of collusion risk and denied any improper influence on witnesses. Considerable discussion followed regarding the role of the defence investigator in Rwanda, transparency, and whether procedural rules or protocols should be imposed by the investigating judge. The prosecution requested that the case be referred back to the investigating judge with a mandate to establish such rules; the defence resisted this, citing defence rights, safety concerns, and professional privilege.

The record indicates that the Court withdrew for deliberation on the detention request. The final decision on suspension of pre-trial detention is not included in the provided transcript.

The Court and parties confirmed planning for the substantive hearings, provisionally scheduled for June 2026, with specific hearing days allocated for the presentation of facts, civil claims, prosecution submissions, defence pleadings, and final statements.

The next pro forma hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, 10 February at 10:00.

On September 30, a further pro forma hearing took place in the Ntambara (Desoto) case. Present were the prosecution, the defence, the accused, and the lawyer representing the victims. The hearing addressed the accused’s pre-trial detention, the status of the investigation, and the further course of the proceedings.

Since the last hearing, another investigative trip to Rwanda took place. Four witness interviews were scheduled, of which three were completed. The prosecution also indicated that up to three additional witnesses may be added, depending on the relevance of their testimony and whether they can be located. The defence expressed concerns about another addition of new witnesses and the scheduling phase of the trial which is expected to begin in June 2026. The prosecution noted that they will be able to give more clarity on this after the hearing of the witness testimonies in November.

During the previous pro forma hearing, the court asked to have a report by probation services on possible measures and conditions for a potential suspension of detention. The current report was discussed, but the court noted that it was incomplete and requested a more comprehensive version. The defence submitted a motion to suspend the accused’s pre-trial detention, arguing that there are no serious objections and, alternatively, that the legal grounds for detention are lacking. The defence argued this because they argued that there are inconsistencies in the various testimonies. The prosecution, by contrast, maintained that the statements are not as contradictory as suggested by the defence.

The court rejected the defence’s request to suspend the pre-trial detention. It held that there remain serious objections, as multiple witnesses have provided incriminating statements, and that the evaluation of the precise meaning of the witness statements and any possible inconsistencies will be evaluated during the substantive phase of the trial. Finally, the court reiterated its request for a more complete probation report outlining possible conditions and measures for suspension of detention.

The next hearing is scheduled for the 18th of December at 10:00.

On April 17, 2025, a pro forma hearing was held in the Ntambara case, concerning allegations of the defendant’s involvement in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The defendant was not present. The hearing focused on the investigation’s progress, a motion to include new witness testimony, and a renewed request for the suspension of pre-trial detention.

The prosecution reported that four additional witnesses were heard during the March 2025 investigative mission to Rwanda. Due to interpreter shortages, translations of the testimonies are pending and expected by July. In total, fourteen witnesses have now been heard for the defense, with counsel indicating that up to four more may be added depending on ongoing interviews.

A procedural dispute arose over the inclusion of a new witness statement. The defense argued that the testimony contained contradictions relevant to the credibility of other witnesses and could support the defendant’s case. The prosecution objected, claiming the statement lacked exculpatory value and had not been adequately substantiated. The court ruled in favor of the defense, allowing the statement to be added to the case file.

The defense also renewed its motion to suspend the defendant’s pre-trial detention, citing his advanced age, deteriorating health, and the projected length of proceedings. Counsel argued that recent testimonies suggested the defendant had acted to protect individuals during the genocide. The prosecution disputed the defense’s interpretation of the witness statements and maintained that the seriousness of the charges continued to justify detention. The court rejected the motion, holding that the defendant’s personal circumstances did not outweigh the gravity of the allegations.

The next procedural hearing is scheduled for 7 July, 2025, at 12:00.

On February 18, 2025, the District Court of The Hague held a pro forma hearing in the case against the suspect, who is facing charges related to his alleged involvement in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The defendant, currently held in the psychiatric detention facility in Vught, was present.

The hearing focused on the ongoing investigation, which has significantly expanded since Ntambara’s arrest in early 2024. The case file now includes digital evidence, tapped communications, official reports, and documents from Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts, a community-based justice system used after the genocide. The examining magistrate confirmed that the investigative phase remains active.

Both the prosecution and defense are scheduled to conduct multiple investigative missions to Rwanda throughout 2025, with trips planned for March, June, September, and November. Approximately fifteen witnesses are expected to be heard. The examining magistrate advised against exceeding this number per trip due to logistical and procedural constraints. The prosecution also indicated that further travel may be necessary in 2026.

The court addressed the translation of Gacaca documents, following the prosecution’s proposal to translate key materials into English instead of Dutch to ease interpretation challenges. The defense did not object, and the court approved this approach.

A key issue raised by the defense involved concerns over the alleged sharing of sensitive defense-related information with Rwandan authorities. The defense argued that personal details of defense lawyers had been shared without prior consultation, potentially compromising their safety. The prosecution maintained that its communication with Rwandan officials was limited to general investigative matters and did not include names or specific case details.

The defense submitted requests for the appointment of two expert witnesses, one specializing in post-genocide governance in Rwanda and the other in the Gacaca justice system. The prosecution objected to one expert, citing a previous denial by the examining magistrate on the grounds that the proposed testimony fell outside legal expertise. For the second expert, the prosecution questioned the necessity of their appointment and suggested an alternative expert, Elaine Dumas, known for her fieldwork in Rwanda and proficiency in the local language.

The defense also submitted a motion for release or, alternatively, a suspension of pre-trial detention, citing Ntambara’s advanced age, declining mental health, and the risk of extended pre-trial incarceration. They further pointed to inconsistencies in witness statements as evidence of weakened case severity.

The court ultimately denied the request for release or suspension, stating that while witness statements contained discrepancies, these were not substantial enough to undermine the seriousness of the charges. The court concluded that the gravity of the alleged crimes outweighed the defendant’s personal circumstances.

Regarding the defense’s investigative requests, the court authorized the appointment of one expert and deferred a decision on the second until the examining magistrate could assess the relevance of their expertise. The next procedural hearing is scheduled for April 17, 2025, at 13:30.