On 23 April 2026, at 09:00, the defence began its closing arguments in the Shildon case.

General remarks

The defence opened its argument by stating that it does not wish to “downplay” what happened to the victims. However, during his detention, the client himself was also subjected to torture.

The defence acknowledges that in 2020 the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that such circumstances do not automatically lead to the exclusion of evidence or to the inadmissibility of the public prosecutor under Article 359a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nevertheless, the defence argues that in exceptional cases, involving very serious human rights violations, including torture and violations of Article 3 ECHR, a declaration of inadmissibility is indeed possible.

The defence therefore argues that the alleged torture of the suspect – although carried out by Syrian forces (NDF) and not Dutch authorities – should still affect the admissibility of the case, because the seriousness of the violation (torture) is what matters most. According to the defence, the ruling makes clear that the nature of the violation is central in assessing admissibility.

The defence requests that the Dutch public prosecutor should be declared inadmissible, at least regarding the charges relating to the women R. and O.

According to the case file, the client was detained for six months, abducted, blindfolded, and handcuffed, assaulted, stabbed, exposed to executions, and subjected to electric shocks. He suffered permanent damage to his hearing and eyesight and sustained broken hands requiring surgery. The defence considers it plausible that he was tortured.

According to the defence, these circumstances must weigh heavily, especially since the client has already suffered severely in connection with (part of) the charges.

The client denies all allegations. In this regard, the defence emphasizes that lying about one fact (A) does not mean that one is also lying about other facts (B). According to the defence, this is supported by case law and legal literature. Even if the client made false statements about involvement with the NDF, this does not mean that he is guilty of the offences charged.

According to the defence, there are various reasons why a suspect may make untrue statements, such as shame or confusion. Obstructing an investigation also does not automatically imply involvement in criminal offences.

With regard to the evidence, the defence argues that many of the charges rely primarily on witness statements. These must be assessed critically, especially since they were often given years later and witnesses had contact with one another, including via social media. Influence therefore cannot be ruled out. Some witnesses did not initially recognize the client and only reached that conclusion later.

Individual charges

According to the defence, there is insufficient evidence that the incident with the barrel fire gun took place. Only one statement mentions it, while other witnesses say nothing about it. Even if the incident did occur, the case file does not show that the client was involved or that he directed it. Statements indicate that another individual acted and that it was a brief, impulsive moment. There is no evidence that the client gave any order. The defence also argues that it cannot be excluded that the incident occurred without the client’s knowledge or before he could intervene. Therefore, the defence concludes that the client must be acquitted of this charge.

According to the defence, there is insufficient evidence that the client was involved in the interrogations of M. M. stated that he was interrogated several times and saw the interrogator but was not certain that it was the client. The identification appears to be partly based on rumours and assumptions by others. Therefore, the defence considers the evidence insufficient.

The defence disputes that there are international crimes. There is insufficient evidence of threats against family members, and the detention and interrogations do not, according to the defence, constitute proof of torture or inhuman treatment in a legal sense. Regarding the allegations of torture and crimes against humanity (counts 10 and 11), the defence points to contradictory witness statements. For example, witness A initially made incriminating statements but later gave exculpatory ones. According to the defence, this indicates a willingness to wrongfully incriminate the client. In addition, witnesses contradict one another on key events, such as incidents involving female detainees, making it unclear who is telling the truth. The defence further argues that any alleged sexual offences were not part of a widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population, as required for crimes against humanity. On the contrary, such behaviour was reportedly condemned within the NDF. The client himself is also said to have been a victim of mistreatment by the NDF. Therefore, any acts could at most be considered individual criminal offences, but not international crimes. The defence pleads for acquittal on these counts.

R.
The defence argues that there are no direct witnesses to the alleged acts involving R. Statements by others are based on what they heard from R. and do not constitute independent evidence. Although emotions were observed in R., this is not sufficiently reliable given the passage of time. Her statement was made shortly after her release, which may work in her favour, but according to the defence there is a lack of additional supporting evidence.

O.
O. was blindfolded during the events and could not see the perpetrator. The defence notes that she later claimed to have recognized the client, but argues that this is unreliable due to the blindfold. O. may have been influenced by conversations with others and by information provided to her. Her identification appears to have been partly guided by third parties. Moreover, she initially recognized the perpetrator based on appearance rather than voice. The defence argues that her statement cannot be used as evidence and that there is no supporting evidence.

S.
According to the defence, the statement of S. must be excluded from the evidence. The defence was unable to question S., and no valid reason was given for his absence. Practical reasons such as unavailability because of work or family are insufficient to justify this. No compensatory measures were taken to address this deficiency. Furthermore, the case file contains inconsistencies and inaccuracies in S.’s statements, including on crucial points. The defence concludes that S.’s statement is unreliable and must not be used as evidence.

This summary covers the first part of the defence’s closing arguments. A more complete version will follow once the full hearing has been reviewed and additional materials have been incorporated.

The hearing on 22nd April was dedicated to the closing arguments of the Public Prosecutor, who presented both the contextual framework of the case and the evidence linking the accused to the alleged crimes.

The Shildon investigation began in November 2021, following information provided by a human rights lawyer, who shared witness statements indicating that a man residing in the Netherlands had been involved in serious international crimes in Syria. These statements described severe ill-treatment in detention centres in Salamiyah, where the accused allegedly worked as an interrogator and head of the interrogation department of the National Defence Forces (NDF) between 2013 and 2014.

Based on multiple, consistent witness accounts, the accused – who had previously been granted asylum in the Netherlands – was identified and subsequently arrested on 8 December 2023. The investigation evolved significantly after the fall of the Assad regime, as witnesses who had previously feared reprisals became more willing to testify openly.

The case now focuses on nine victims who have actively participated in the proceedings, including by attending hearings and submitting compensation claims.

The Public Prosecutor presented a detailed account of the broader context in which the alleged crimes took place, arguing that the case forms part of a widespread and systematic attack by the Syrian regime against the civilian population.

Relying on multiple authoritative sources, including the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM), the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria, and relevant domestic and international case law, the Prosecution submitted that, from March 2011 onwards, peaceful protests across Syria were met with coordinated and escalating violence. This repression, directed at demonstrators, activists, and civilians alike, was organised at the highest political and military levels and aimed at suppressing dissent through fear and intimidation.

According to the Prosecution, torture and sexual violence were not incidental, but integral to this policy, used both to extract information and to punish and terrorise individuals and communities.

A central role in this system was played by pro-regime militias, which evolved into more structured entities, including the NDF, formally established in 2013. These groups operated under State authority, carrying out arrests, detention, and interrogations, and were granted significant powers, including control over detention facilities.

The case focuses on events in Salamiyah, described as a key location where protests were violently repressed and where civilians were arrested and subjected to ill-treatment. The Prosecution argued that the NDF actively participated in this repression, including through the operation of detention sites where torture and abuse occurred.

With regard to the accused, the Prosecution submitted that he held a significant role within the NDF as an interrogator, based on multiple consistent witness statements. These include both victim-witnesses, who described direct experiences of interrogation and abuse, and other witnesses familiar with the situation in Salamiyah, who identified him as part of the NDF structure.

Several witnesses described the accused as openly associated with the NDF, including through visible uniforms and weapons. Witnesses reported that his role as an interrogator was widely known within the community. Testimony from individuals such as A., H., and others indicates that information about interrogators was systematically collected and shared among opposition networks based on accounts from released detainees.

The Prosecution argued that the accused’s actions were directly linked to the broader State policy of repression, and that he acted with knowledge of the wider attack. His position within the NDF, combined with the scale and visibility of the violence across Syria, supports the conclusion that he was aware that his conduct formed part of a widespread and systematic attack against civilians.

The Prosecution also presented documentary evidence obtained after the fall of the Assad regime, including internal security reports, correspondence, and NDF records. While documents potentially obtained under coercion were not relied upon for the truth of any confessions or statements, the Prosecution argued that they remain relevant to establish roles, functions, hierarchy, arrest dates, transfers, operational orders, and organisational structures.

Several documents refer to the accused as an interrogator for the NDF in Salamiyah. One internal security study from 2015 advised against his return to judicial employment, stating that he had worked as an NDF interrogator and had been detained following allegations of sexual abuse of a female detainee. Another security study from 2019 similarly records that he appeared in the criminal register in connection with suspected attempted rape of women in his role as an interrogator in the NDF office.

The Prosecution also referred to a handwritten letter signed by the accused in September 2013, in which he referred to his work in the Information and Interrogation Department, as well as an NDF order summoning him for an interview. According to the Prosecution, these documents contradict the accused’s explanation that his involvement with the NDF was limited to clerical tasks.

The reliability of the documents was assessed by looking at their origin, formal characteristics, authentication process, and consistency with other evidence. The Prosecution noted that some documents were assessed by the Syria Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC), which concluded that they were authentic. Their content was also consistent with witness statements concerning the accused’s role, his detention by the NDF, the reasons for that detention, and his later departure from Syria.

Taken together, the witness statements, documentary evidence, and other investigative findings support the conclusion, according to the Prosecution, that the accused worked for the NDF in Salamiyah as an interrogator from an early stage of the uprising and later held a position of real authority within NDF detention centres.

The Prosecution argued that the accused was not merely present during interrogations, but exercised control over detainees and over those working under him. Witnesses described him as the person deciding whether detainees would remain imprisoned or be released, directing the content of reports, giving orders during interrogations, and supervising or instructing others in the use of violence. Several witnesses also stated that he was addressed with titles indicating authority and respect.

The Prosecution then addressed the reliability of the witness statements. It stressed that caution is required, given the passage of time and the traumatic nature of the events described. However, it also noted that trauma does not automatically undermine reliability, particularly where the core elements of the testimony remain consistent and are supported by other evidence.

According to the Prosecution, the witness statements in this case were obtained in a careful and reliable manner by specialised investigators, with experienced interpreters and additional safeguards in place for interviews involving sexual violence. Allegations of improper influence by third parties, including the Syrian human rights lawyer or his organisation, were examined but no indications of improper influence were found.

The Prosecution then discussed the specific allegations concerning the different detention locations: the Carpet Factory, the Villa of the Kuwaiti, and Tal el Tut. Across these locations, the Prosecution identified a consistent pattern: detainees were held by the NDF, subjected to violent interrogations, torture, inhuman treatment, and sexual violence, and the accused was repeatedly identified as playing a central role in those interrogations.

With regard to the victims’ claims, nine victims submitted civil claims seeking compensation for the harm suffered. The Prosecution argued that these claims are directly linked to the criminal acts charged in the case and can be assessed within the criminal proceedings. It also addressed issues including applicable law, limitation periods, immunity, causation, statutory interest, and the fact that the accused may not be able to pay compensation himself.

Finally, the Prosecution addressed sentencing. It submitted that the case concerns extremely serious crimes committed against nine victims in NDF detention centres in Syria in 2013 and 2014. The Prosecution considered the charges proven, including nine counts of torture and inhuman treatment, six counts of sexual violence, and one count of rape.

The Prosecution emphasised the severe and long-lasting consequences for the victims, including psychological trauma, fear, loss of trust, social isolation, and ongoing physical effects. It also referred to the accused’s conduct during the proceedings, his attitude, and the danger he continues to pose to society.

Taking all circumstances into account, the Prosecution requested that the court find all charges proven, award the victims’ claims for damages, and impose the highest possible sentence: 30 years imprisonment, with pre-trial detention deducted.

The hearing scheduled for 21 April began with a request from the accused to leave the courtroom, stating that he had nothing to do with the victims and did not wish to listen to the Public Prosecutor’s statement.

The prosecutor objected, noting that such a request demonstrated a lack of respect towards the victims, who were present in court and had followed the proceedings.

After briefly adjourning to deliberate, the Court rejected the request. While acknowledging that, in certain circumstances, a defendant may be allowed to leave, the judges found that no sufficient justification had been provided. They emphasised the importance of the accused remaining present, particularly in light of the victims’ participation.

Shortly thereafter, the hearing was interrupted due to technical issues with the livestream and could not proceed as planned.

VICTIMS’ DAY

Click here to read summaries of day 3 & 4 in Arabic.

The hearing on 14th April focused primarily on the statements of the injured parties, with several victims addressing the court directly through their legal representative and, in some instances, through personal statements. The session was marked by a strong emphasis on the impact of the alleged crimes, both at an individual and collective level.

At the outset, the victims’ lawyer, representing nine individuals (seven of whom were present in court), framed the proceedings within the broader context of the Syrian uprising in 2011. Many of the victims had participated in peaceful demonstrations in Salamiyah during the early stages of the Arab Spring, calling for basic rights, democratic reform, and the release of detainees. These protests, the lawyer stressed, were met with violent repression, leading to arrests, detention, and widespread practices of torture.

A central theme throughout the hearing was the contrast between the victims’ accounts and the version of events presented by the accused. The victims’ representative emphasized that the individuals concerned were not affiliated with armed groups but were ordinary civilians engaged in peaceful protest. In this context, the credibility of the accused’s narrative – portraying a different reality – was repeatedly challenged.

The court heard detailed descriptions of the role of the National Defence Forces (NDF), which the accused is alleged to have joined. The NDF operated as a loosely structured militia, often composed of individuals with criminal backgrounds and motivated, at least in part, by financial gain. Testimonies referred to practices including looting, arbitrary arrests, and extortion, with detainees’ release allegedly conditioned on the payment of significant sums.

The victims’ accounts, as summarized in court, described a consistent pattern of detention conditions and methods of abuse. These included blindfolding, binding with cable ties, forced positions, and systematic humiliation. Several statements referred to the accused as playing a leading role in interrogations, giving orders, and directly participating in acts of violence. Victims described being forced to address him using terms denoting authority, reinforcing the hierarchical and coercive environment of detention.

Particular attention was given to the use of humiliation and psychological violence as integral components of the alleged conduct. Witnesses described being insulted, degraded, and forced into dehumanizing acts, including being made to behave “like animals” for the amusement of guards. One victim reportedly described the accused as deriving visible satisfaction from the suffering of detainees, while another stated that torture was often inflicted not for the purpose of obtaining information, but for entertainment.

The hearing also highlighted the collective dimension of the alleged crimes. Victims described how torture was deliberately made visible and audible to others, amplifying fear and psychological suffering among detainees. This aspect was explicitly linked to broader jurisprudence (Verscher case) recognizing that exposure to the suffering of others can itself constitute a form of torture.

In addition to physical abuse, several accounts referred to sexual violence and gender-based harm, particularly affecting female detainees. The statements emphasized the long-term psychological consequences of such acts, including trauma, social stigma, and lasting impacts on personal and family life.

A significant portion of the session was devoted to victim impact statements.

S. expressed gratitude to the Dutch court for the opportunity to be heard, while also directly challenging the accused’s portrayal of his own situation. Referring to the accused’s complaints about detention conditions, S. contrasted these with his own experience: “He must have forgotten what he did to me… how I was confined in a 3-square-meter cell… we were deprived of sleep… no food for days.”

He rejected any comparison between the accused’s current detention and the conditions endured by victims, stating: “He has no right to compare himself to this situation.”

At the same time, S. emphasized that, regardless of the outcome of the proceedings: “No verdict will change my life or give me back what I lost.”

M., who was not present in court due to the psychological impact of the events, explained that the prospect of confronting the accused remained overwhelming. The victim described how the experience of detention continued to shape their daily life: “I was afraid to be arrested again… this feeling is still here, even in Europe.”

D., who chose not to speak directly in court, even if he was present, had his statement read by his lawyer. He framed his testimony not only as a personal account, but as representing a broader collective experience: “I stand here not only for myself… I am the echo of the voices of those who disappeared, tortured, raped and killed.”

He described the accused as: “the worst nightmare in my life,” and highlighted the long-term psychological consequences, including anxiety and sleep disorders. His statement also emphasized the symbolic importance of the proceedings:  “The law is the last refuge people have to restore their dignity.”

A. focused in particular on issues of justice and reparations. He told the court he wished to share his “deep feelings regarding the injustice” he had suffered, stressing that the consequences of his detention continued to affect every aspect of his life, including his health, financial stability, and psychological well-being.

Despite being before the court, he said he did not feel that his rights had been fully respected: “I still feel a very deep sense of sadness and injustice.”

A. explained that revisiting his experiences throughout the proceedings caused painful memories to resurface, including the fear of dying in detention and never seeing his children again. He also recalled the suffering his family endured during his imprisonment.

A central concern of his statement was the issue of reparations. He questioned the requirement to prove material losses in a context where lives, homes, and dignity had been systematically destroyed: “What rights are we talking about then?”  “Today you ask me for proof… how can I think you believe me?”

He emphasized that the losses he had suffered were “enormous in every aspect” and that the current compensation framework did not reflect the reality of the harm endured. While estimating his losses at around EUR 100,000, he stated that even partial compensation would represent a form of recognition.

He concluded by reaffirming his sense of injustice, describing himself as “still a victim of injustice,” while at the same time expressing hope that the court would carefully assess his case and deliver a meaningful judgment.

J. began by thanking the court for its efforts, stating that he appeared “as a person who experienced horrendous things,” carrying “deep scars” that he had borne silently for years. He described his detention as marked by inhumane conditions, uncertainty about his fate, and a constant fear that he might not survive. He framed his presence in court as an opportunity to be heard and to contribute to truth-telling:

“I am not here to seek revenge.. I am here as a victim to bring the truth to light.”

He called on the court to assess the victims’ experiences “with honesty and humanity,” as a necessary step toward restoring part of what had been lost.

He concluded by framing the case as more than a legal process: “This court case is not merely legal, it is a step towards acknowledging what happened,” adding that he was now trying to move forward and rebuild his life, while expressing hope that justice would ultimately be done.

H. provided a broader reflection on the role of the National Defence Forces and the systemic nature of the violence. He described the militia as operating without rules or accountability, driven by power and financial motives, and characterized the violence as: “a sadistic ritual… they took pleasure in the suffering of others.”

Recalling his own experience, he stated: “I can still feel the barrel of his gun in my mouth… ‘Do you want to smell gunpowder? He tortured me, with whatever came to his hands. He turn objects around us in instrument of torture’”

“He was above the law, and he believed he would remain above the law here as well. The fact that he is now behind bars will not erase what happened, but it will help prevent what could happen in the future…He continues to pose a danger, not only because he was part of the regime, but because he freely chose to become an instrument of torture, someone who took pleasure in inflicting pain. He is a danger for the future.

Throughout history, very few people have been given the opportunity to stand in a court with the perpetrator. I am grateful to everyone who worked to make this possible. This day is not just for me, it is for the thousands of souls taken by the accused and his accomplices.”

F. started his statement saying “I’m now sitting in court in front of such a monster, last time I saw him I thought it was the last time I was alive.” He described how the experience fundamentally altered his sense of self: “He was killing hope inside me… my childhood… love.”

He also sought to speak on behalf of others detained with him, including children: “I want to be the voice of those who are no longer here.”

R. said she wanted to speak on behalf of all women who had been subjected to sexual violence, stressing that “they should not be silent.” She apologised for leaving the courtroom the previous day, explaining that she could not bear listening to the accused speak about his own trauma, when, as she put it, “he is the one who caused this trauma to me.”

She described the long-term psychological impact of what she went through, including recurring triggers and memories that continue to affect her daily life. At the same time, she pointed to the accused’s behaviour in court, saying that the way he spoke, particularly towards female judges and the prosecutor, was deeply disrespectful and difficult to accept.

Rejecting the narrative imposed on her, she stated: “I’m not a source of shame for my family, as he was trying to say.”

She emphasised that the harm she suffered cannot be compared to the accused’s time in detention, noting that her own suffering has lasted for more than thirteen years and continues to shape her life.

Speaking directly, she also raised concerns about how she was being addressed during the proceedings: “Can I get justice as a woman? Why, during court, do you need to be talking like this to me?”

She explained that this way of speaking affects her deeply, including her sense of dignity and her future, both personally and professionally. For this reason, she insisted on speaking in her own voice.

She concluded by saying that, although she never expected to have the opportunity to seek justice outside Syria, being before the court now represents an important step in reclaiming her rights and dignity, even if some of what she lost cannot be restored.

O. said she was speaking on her own behalf, but also felt the need to add something different after hearing the previous statements. She stressed that, while much had already been said about the victims, it was important to clarify that they did not want to be seen only as such: “We are not only victims… we are part of a group of people of the revolution”

She described her experience of displacement after leaving Syria in 2013, explaining that she had lost her home and been separated from her children, and had spent periods of time homeless in different countries. The trauma of detention and exile, she said, followed her for years, and she struggled to cope with it.

What helped her, she explained, was continuing to act,supporting others in Lebanon and contributing to documenting violations: “I kept fighting… and helped others.”

At the same time, she described the fear that persisted even outside Syria, noting that she had initially refused to have her name made public because she was afraid of the regime and its networks.

O continued referring to the detailed accounts of sexual violence heard in court over the previous days. She noted the accused’s reaction while listening: “He remained cold… he showed no humanity.” She stressed that such violence has lasting and profound consequences, adding that people subjected to it can no longer experience their bodies as their own. In this context, she questioned the way such details are addressed in court: “For victims, these details are painful… I don’t think they are useful.”

Despite everything, she made clear that her position was not driven by hatred. She said she did not seek revenge and expressed the hope that responsibility would remain individual: “The defendant is the only one who has to pay for his crimes.”

She concluded by expressing a broader hope for the future, that one day people would be able to live again with their families in their own country.

Throughout the session, the accused’s position of denial remained a constant point of tension. Victims expressed distress at hearing his statements, particularly where he presented himself in ways they perceived as inconsistent with their experiences. Some also referred to perceived attempts at intimidation or discrediting of their testimony.

The court then addressed the civil claims for compensation submitted by the victims’ lawyer on behalf of nine injured parties.

For D., M., F., O., S., and R., the lawyer requested EUR 35,000 each in non-material damages, on the basis that they are victims of torture and sexual violence, qualified as crimes against humanity.

For A., H., and J., the request amounted to EUR 30,000 each in non-material damages, reflecting their status as victims of torture as a crime against humanity.

The defence argued that the claims should be declared inadmissible, raising several objections, including the lack of a clear and accessible legal framework under Syrian law governing the assessment and awarding of damages; requests were outdated, and the assertion that an expert report on immunity was not properly accessible or readable.

The court noted that the admissibility and substance of these compensation claims will be further examined and discussed at a later stage of the proceedings, in the context of the closing submissions of both the defence and the victims’ representatives.

The proceedings are expected to continue with the submissions by the prosecution and defence on the 21st, 22nd and 23rd of April.

Click here to read summaries of day 3 & 4 in Arabic.

The third hearing day focused on the remaining charges concerning three complainants, identified in court as H, F, and D, and then turned to the accused’s personal circumstances, including discussion of a psychiatric assessment report. From the outset, the court made clear that the day would cover allegations relating to torture, physical abuse, and, in one instance, sexual violence as crimes against humanity. The accused again rejected the allegations in full and repeated his broader claim that the complainants were connected to Ahrar al-Salamiyah and were participating in a coordinated effort to falsely implicate him. 

At the beginning of the session, the accused complained that parts of his case file had been blacked out and that, because he did not understand Dutch, he was dependent on translators and unable to access the material properly. The court responded that it had the same version of the file and said that any issues concerning redactions could be addressed later by the defence. The presiding judge nevertheless gave the accused a limited opportunity to explain his position that the witnesses were acting against him as part of a conspiracy. In that initial narrative, he spoke at length about Salamiyah, local protest dynamics, armed opposition factions, and individuals whom he linked to later events. The court repeatedly tried to keep him focused on the specific charges under discussion. 

The court then turned to H’s statements. According to the judge’s summary, H said he had participated in anti-government protests from 2011 onwards, had no particular political affiliation beyond opposing the Syrian regime, and later surrendered himself after his brother had been detained and he was given a deadline to report. He said he was taken to a location described as a farm near Salamiyah, where he was blindfolded, tied, insulted, and violently interrogated. His account included prolonged beatings, forced exposure to cold after the beatings, suspension in an inverted position, kicking, blows with military footwear, and the insertion of a gun into his anus during interrogation, combined with threats that his fingers would be cut off and his fingerprints forced onto documents. He also described long-lasting injuries, especially to his left shoulder and nose, and said he did not initially even know what he was accused of. On identification, H stated that he recognized the accused primarily through voice and from a brief glimpse from under the blindfold, describing a broad-browed man wearing glasses, of shorter and heavier build, and said that later contextual details led him to conclude with near certainty that the accused was the interrogator. The court also referred to corroborative points from related files, including statements that H and the other detainees had visible injuries and that public-source material and social media posts appeared to support the fact of arrests. 

The court next addressed F’s file, which was presented as closely linked to H’s. F stated that he was a teenager at the time. He described how National Defence Forces personnel came in multiple vehicles, surrounded the area, and eventually took his father in order to force him to surrender. After he gave himself up, he said he was taken to detention and subjected to repeated interrogations over several days. His account included beatings all over the body, threats to kill him and his family, the pouring of hot water over him after he lost consciousness, kicks to the head and face, injuries to the eye and jaw, blows to the genitals and buttocks, hanging in an inverted position, electric cables, and forced fingerprinting on documents whose contents he did not know. He also said that at one point he tried to free his hands, remove the blindfold, and beg the accused to stop. He identified the accused through prior familiarity, saying the accused had been a customer at his father’s vegetable stall, as well as by voice and by what he could see through the blindfold during the interrogations. The court further referred to the statements of D and H about F’s appearance after the abuse, including swelling, blood, and visible weakness. Medical material in the file was also mentioned, indicating lasting physical pain, disc and vertebral damage, ankle injury, and serious psychological consequences including trauma. The court additionally referred to public Facebook material recording F’s arrest and later release, and to a visual record in which he was allegedly identifiable among persons arrested by the NDF. 

The material concerning D appears in the second uploaded file, beginning with a continuation from the first file. The court referred to public-source research showing that a Facebook group associated with Ahrar Salamiyah had posted in October 2013 that 143 persons were arrested in Salamiyah, and that D’s name appeared on that list with the date 20 October 2013. The prosecution then questioned the accused about statements he had previously made regarding D and the group to which he belonged. In particular, the prosecution pressed him on how he knew that D’s group had been taken to Damascus by Fadel al-Warda, and how he knew they had been treated well in that official’s office. The accused answered that he had explained this before and said he had heard it from the district director, whom he quoted as being angry that prior local measures had been disrupted by Fadel al-Warda’s intervention. The prosecution challenged him on the source of this knowledge and whether he had witnessed any of it himself. The exchange was notable because it exposed the accused’s tendency to make factual assertions while resisting clear attribution of where his information came from. 

When given a further opportunity to respond to the allegations involving H, F, and D, the accused continued to deny personal involvement and shifted repeatedly into broader attacks on the witnesses. He argued, among other things, that H’s account of being taken only two kilometres did not fit the geography of the alleged detention site, that F’s age was uncertain because birth registrations in Syria were sometimes recorded late and standardized at the start of a year, and that the three complainants were tied to armed factions or opposition actors. He tried several times to address the witnesses directly, to accuse them of involvement in killings, kidnappings, or cooperation with armed groups, and to challenge their credibility by reference to persons and events in Salamiyah. The court interrupted him more than once, reminding him that he had to address the bench rather than confront the witnesses directly. At one stage he added that questions of injuries and bodily traces should be left to medical experts rather than decided on the basis of what was merely heard or observed in testimony. 

The prosecution also drew attention to an interpretive report in the case file concerning repeated Arabic honorifics used in the witness statements, particularly “sidi,” “mu‘allim,” and “ustadh”, and explained that these terms can convey authority, rank, or social status, including in military settings. This appears to have been relevant to how witnesses described the role or status of perpetrators in their narratives. The prosecution also indicated that additional texts relating to one witness had been received but had not yet formally been before the court, and the bench said such materials could be addressed later during closing submissions. 

After completing the discussion of the remaining allegations, the court moved to the accused’s personal circumstances. The judges referred to his arrest in December 2021, his ongoing complaints about prison conditions, his anger toward the justice system and police, and the fact that he had been assessed by psychiatric professionals. The court summarized a report from the Pieter Baan Centre, noting that an earlier doctor had observed symptoms suggesting post-traumatic stress, but that the later forensic assessment had not been able to establish a clear psychiatric disorder or PTSD with certainty. The court said the report described him as generally stable, deliberate in his behaviour, cooperative during the assessment, and presenting himself as a person of status, while also observing emotional intensity and a limited capacity for empathy. It was also noted that the researchers did not find a mental condition that would have affected his conduct in relation to the charges. 

The accused rejected that assessment. He said his psychological condition had been ignored for 28 months, complained again that everything in prison came to him in Dutch, and said he remained wholly dependent on translators whose accuracy he could not verify. He also criticized the report’s methods, denied a translated statement suggesting that he accepted violence under some circumstances, and objected to the pressure placed on his family by repeated police contact. When asked more directly what he thought of the medical conclusions, he mocked one of the researchers and argued that such a person could not credibly assess whether he suffered from PTSD. He nevertheless stated that if the witnesses were telling the truth, then what happened to them was deeply regrettable; but if they were lying, then it was shameful that the government and court were occupied with such a case. 

The hearing was also marked by frequent friction over procedure. The judges repeatedly reminded the accused to keep his answers brief, not to turn his responses into speeches, and not to speak directly to the witnesses. At one point, the livestream was temporarily paused because someone in the public gallery needed to leave. By the end of the day, the court indicated that it had now discussed the remaining factual allegations for that session and had also covered the accused’s personal situation. It further indicated that the next procedural stage would involve the prosecution’s submissions, after which the accused would again have an opportunity to speak.

The second day of the hearing focused on the detailed examination of multiple charges through victim testimonies, each describing patterns of detention, abuse, and violence allegedly carried out in Salamiyah in 2013-2014. Throughout the day, the accused maintained a position of complete denial, repeatedly claiming that the allegations were fabricated and part of a broader conspiracy against him.

The first set of statements concerned M. According to the case file, M was arrested in early January 2013 in Salamiyah after being linked to protest activities. He described being taken by armed individuals, transported to a nearby facility, allegedly a former carpet factory used by the NDF, and held there for several days. During this period, he was blindfolded, restrained, and subjected to repeated interrogations. The judge outlined that M reported being beaten with sticks and the barrel of a rifle, kicked, and held by multiple individuals while being questioned. The judge highlighted that M reported recognizing the accused when his blindfold loosened during one interrogation. Supporting elements included statements from M’s mother, who described visible injuries and behavioural changes after his release, as well as medical documentation indicating lasting psychological harm.

The court then addressed the statements of R, which included detailed allegations of sexual violence. As summarised by the judge, R described being arrested in mid-2013 and taken to a detention location associated with the NDF. There, she reported being subjected to repeated acts of sexual violence during interrogations. The judge outlined the sequence of events described in her statements, including physical assault, coercion, and rape. Particular attention was given to the level of detail in her account, including her description of the perpetrator and the presence of a distinguishing mark on his body, which the prosecution linked to forensic findings. The court also highlighted corroborating elements: R had disclosed the abuse shortly after her release to trusted individuals, whose statements were included in the file, and had previously described the events in migration proceedings.  The accused denied all allegations, at times refraining from engaging with the substance of the claims.

The file relating to O was then presented. According to the judge’s summary, O described being detained in  2013 and transported, while blindfolded, to a detention site where she was interrogated. During these interrogations, she reported being subjected to severe physical violence, including beatings and electric shocks, as well as sexual abuse involving invasive acts. The judge emphasised that although O could not see her attacker due to the blindfold, she later associated the accused with the abuse based on his voice and a subsequent encounter in a public setting, where she experienced an immediate and strong recognition response. The court also referred to supporting testimony from her sister, who described O’s condition upon release, including visible bruises on her body, signs of physical injury, and clear indications of psychological distress.

Finally, the court addressed statements concerning another victim (A), who described prolonged detention and systematic torture. According to the summary presented, A was detained for an extended period, reportedly several weeks to months, during which he was repeatedly beaten, held in overcrowded and degrading conditions, and exposed to ongoing violence. He described being struck with chains, kicked, and beaten to the point of losing consciousness, as well as witnessing the torture of other detainees. A significant element of his testimony is the identification of the accused not only as a participant but as someone who appeared to exercise authority, including directing or signalling the continuation of violence during interrogations. Additional statements from relatives and other witnesses described his physical condition after detention, including severe weight loss, dental damage, and long-term health consequences.

Day 2 was marked by a series of detailed and often overlapping testimonies pointing to a consistent pattern of abuse. While the accused firmly denied all allegations and questioned the credibility of the witnesses, the testimonies presented a coherent narrative of detention and mistreatment linked to the same structures and actors.

The accused maintained a position of complete denial throughout, rejecting the allegations and challenging the credibility of the witnesses, while offering limited substantive explanations in response to the specific evidence presented.

The hearing continues on 13 April, when the court will address the remaining charges as well as the suspect’s personal circumstances.

The first day of the substantive hearing in the Shildon case took place in the Netherlands on 8 April 2025 in the District Court of Den Haag. The suspect was present and represented by counsel. Also in attendance were two prosecutors, representatives for the injured parties, three Arabic interpreters and two English interpreters. A livestream was made available in Dutch, English, and Arabic. A separate stream was provided for the victims who could not attend in person.

The charges

The Public Prosecution Service outlined that the suspect faces a total of 25 charges. All alleged offences took place in Salamiyah, Syria, between 2013 and 2014. The charges include charges of complicity in torture in an official capacity with specific intent, complicity in torture as a crime against humanity, and complicity in various forms of sexual violence as a crime against humanity; committed against multiple victims.

The suspect’s background and position

The Court questioned the suspect on his personal history, his background in Salamiyah, and his former work as a court clerk at the Public Prosecution Service. The suspect acknowledged this role but consistently maintained that his duties were limited to attending crime scenes alongside judicial officials, and that he had no involvement with the NDF (National Defence Forces), a pro-government militia operating under the Assad regime.

When confronted with witness statements suggesting he had attended demonstrations in order to identify and register participants, and that he had subsequently joined the NDF as an interrogator, the suspect denied all such allegations. He described the witnesses as liars, members of opposition parties, or individuals acting under pressure from third parties. Throughout the session, the suspect maintained that the entire case against him was fabricated, orchestrated by the NDF itself in an act of revenge after he had uncovered important information.

Testimonies and evidence

A substantial part of the hearing was devoted to confronting the suspect with the statements of numerous witnesses and injured parties from Salamiyah. Multiple individuals, including former detainees, neighbors, and protesters, identified the suspect by name as an interrogator within the NDF. Several described being detained at various locations around Salamiyah, where they were subjected to physical violence and, in some cases, sexual abuse. Witnesses placed the suspect at these locations in an official capacity.

Witness B.Z. stated that his interrogator was the suspect, describing him in physical detail. Journalist H.M. confirmed knowing the suspect and stated that after the NDF was established, the suspect became one of its interrogators. A.A. described the suspect as the investigator of the organisation. Witness M. stated he had seen the suspect in NDF uniform on multiple occasions, including when the suspect came to collect a doctor.

Among the victims, the accounts were consistent and detailed. M. stated that the suspect’s name was well known among the people of Salamiyah and that he had been summoned by him. F. stated that the NDF operated in Salamiyah, within which the suspect held a position, and that he had been interrogated by the suspect personally. D. confirmed that the suspect worked for the NDF as an interrogator and that he too had been interrogated by him. H. stated that the suspect interrogated him between four and seven times at a farm location, and that prior to his detention he had already seen a photograph of the suspect in camouflage clothing, circulated as a warning about his NDF affiliation. A. stated that the NDF structure was publicly known in Salamiyah, named the suspect as one of its interrogators, and described being stopped and searched by NDF members, with the suspect serving as the interrogator. J. confirmed that the suspect acted as a NDF interrogator, stating that he himself had been detained and that the suspect was his interrogator. S. stated that he had been stopped multiple times by the NDF between 2011 and 2013, and that it was the suspect who had ordered him to get undressed.

Documentary evidence was also presented, including NDF-issued documents bearing the suspect’s name, a handwritten letter acknowledged by the suspect himself, and official intelligence service reports describing him as a former NDF interrogator who had committed sexual offences. The suspect disputed the content of all documents he had not personally signed, claiming translations were incorrect or that the documents had been fabricated.

The Court further presented forensic analysis of photographs found on the phone of the suspect’s wife, showing him in military clothing and holding a firearm. Geo-location analysis strongly suggested these photographs were taken at one of the locations where victims stated they had been detained and interrogated. The suspect denied that the photographs were taken at that location.

The statements of the injured parties formed a consistent and detailed picture. Multiple victims independently described being held at the same locations and subjected to interrogations by the same individual. Several victims recounted incidents of sexual violence. One witness described seeing a female detainee being taken from her cell at night and returned in distress. Another described a scene in which women and children were brought to a location and taken away one by one. Various victims stated that it was commonly known in Salamiyah that the suspect held an interrogator role within the NDF.

The suspect rejected all of these accounts without exception, stating that the testimonies were coordinated and motivated by personal or political interests.

The hearing will continue in the coming days. On 13 and 14 April, the injured parties will exercise their right to make a victim statement; a significant moment in these proceedings for all those who have endured the consequences of the crimes alleged in this case. Closing arguments by the prosecution are scheduled for 21 April, with the defence plea to follow on 22 April. The Court is expected to deliver its verdict on 9 June.

On the first day of the trial, the Public Prosecution Service (OM) presented charges of complicity in torture in an official capacity with specific intent, complicity in torture as a crime against humanity, and complicity in various forms of sexual violence as a crime against humanity allegedly committed in Syria in 2013–2014, in the context of the National Defence Forces (NDF) in Salamiyah.

The suspect faces a total of 25 charges across three separate summonses.

Under summons 71-013355-23, the following 19 facts are alleged:

Counts 1 and 2 concern the co-perpetration of torture and of torture as a crime against humanity against victim M., in or around the period from 3 to 10 January 2013 in Salamiyah, Syria. Count 3 concerns the co-perpetration of sexual violence as a crime against humanity against M. during the same period in Salamiyah, Syria. Upon amendment of the indictment, the original charge of rape as a crime against humanity under count 3 has been reformulated as sexual violence.

Counts 4 and 5 concern the co-perpetration of torture and of torture as a crime against humanity against victim F., in or around the period from 18 to 22 October 2013 in Salamiyah, Syria. Count 6 concerns the co-perpetration of sexual violence as a crime against humanity against F. during the same period in Salamiyah, Syria.

Counts 7 and 8 concern the co-perpetration of torture and of torture as a crime against humanity against victim D., in or around the period from 20 to 24 October 2013 in Salamiyah, Syria. Count 9 concerns the co-perpetration of sexual violence as a crime against humanity against D. during the same period in Salamiyah, Syria.

Counts 10 and 11 concern the co-perpetration of torture and of torture as a crime against humanity against victim A., in or around the period from 20 December 2013 up to and including 15 February 2014 in Salamiyah, Syria.

Counts 12 and 13 concern the co-perpetration of torture and of torture as a crime against humanity against victim J., in or around the period from 3 to 7 January 2014 in Salamiyah, Syria.

Counts 14 and 15 concern the co-perpetration of torture and of torture as a crime against humanity against victim R., in or around the period from 10 to 18 July 2013 in Salamiyah, Syria. Counts 16 and 17 concern the co-perpetration of sexual violence and rape as crimes against humanity against R. during the same period in Salamiyah, Syria.

Counts 18 and 19 concern the co-perpetration of torture and of torture as a crime against humanity against victim H., in or around the period from 14 to 26 October 2013 in Salamiyah, Syria.

Under summons 71-118734-25, the following 3 facts are alleged:

Counts 1 and 2 concern the co-perpetration of torture and of torture as a crime against humanity against victim O., in or around the period from 30 June up to and including 14 July 2013 in Salamiyah, Syria. Count 3 concerns the co-perpetration of sexual violence as a crime against humanity against O. during the same period in Salamiyah, Syria.

Under summons 71-187276-25, the following 3 facts are alleged:

Counts 1 and 2 concern the co-perpetration of torture and of torture as a crime against humanity against victim S., in or around the period from 11 January to 12 February 2014 inclusive in Salamiyah, Syria. The period covered by these counts has been adjusted upon amendment of the indictment. Count 3 concerns the co-perpetration of sexual violence as a crime against humanity against S. during the same period in Salamiyah, Syria, with the period likewise adjusted upon amendment of the indictment.

The suspect was questioned extensively and denied all allegations, including any involvement as an interrogator within the NDF, disputing both witness testimonies and documentary evidence. The Court also examined material relating to locations where victims were reportedly detained and subjected to abuse by the NDF. The suspect stated that, although he recognized some of these locations, he denied they were used by the NDF, instead claiming they were Islamic religious sites.

The seventh pre-trial hearing in the Shildon 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 Shildon 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 Shildon 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.