The ninth pre-trial hearing took place on September 23rd at 13:30 in the District Court of The Hague. The suspect was present and represented by counsel. An interpreter was also in attendance.
The Presiding Judge opened the hearing by outlining the agenda. First, the parties will discuss the status of the investigation and recent additions to the case file. Subsequently, the issue of pre-trial detention shall be addressed. Finally, the parties would be informed about the further planning of the case.
Regarding the investigation, the Presiding Judge noted that the court had received several additions to the case file since the last pre-trial hearing. These include seven witness statements, specific sections of Rwandan criminal case files, and documentation of four recent witness hearings in Rwanda. In addition, the court has received documentation regarding the seizure of the suspect’s wife’s telephone, the results of its examination, and documentation relating to the placement of listening devices in the suspect’s and his wife’s home. The defense submitted two complaints challenging these investigative measures. In addition, the court received a suspension report prepared by the Dutch Probation Services, addressing whether, and under which conditions, the suspect may remain in liberty, waiting for the trail to commence.
Several investigative processes are still ongoing, including the analysis of digital devices and Gacaca trial files, pending authorization to use Belgian phone records, and efforts to obtain additional Rwandan trial documents. The case file is expected to be nearly complete by November.
Next, the issue of the suspect’s pre-trial detention was discussed. Defense counsel, Mr. Wijngaarden, requested that the detention be suspended, presenting an extensive oral argument.
First, the defense raised two invasive actions by the Prosecutor: the forcible seizure of the suspect’s wife’s mobile phone, described as a “street robbery”, and the covert installation of listening devices in their home, referred to as a “residential burglary.” According to the defense, the wife’s phone was forcibly taken outside the detention facility after a visit to her spouse, with the couple learning only fourteen months later that law enforcement was responsible; the official report was likewise drafted only after fourteen months and at the court’s request. The second incident, the “residential burglary,” was captured by the couple’s security system, which showed masked individuals at their home while the wife was abroad. The defense argued that these incidents significantly increased the psychological burden on the suspect in custody, who has now spent approximately 722 days in pre-trial detention. They furthermore argued that the seizure of his wife’s phone was unlawful, violating the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, and that the evidence should be excluded. Finally, the defense disputed the Prosecution’s claim that the phone would show witness interference, maintaining that it contained only private messages between the wife and her brother, which it stated was protected by the lawyer-client privilege, and friends, which does not constitute witness influencing or any unlawful conduct.
Defense counsel Mr. Pestman proceeded to argue that the suspect’s prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 5(3) ECHR, emphasizing that detention should be the exception, requiring factual justification. He noted that grounds such as threats to public order and the risk of witness interference diminish over time, that the prosecution bears the burden of proof, and that, as the investigation advances, the suspect’s personal interests increasingly outweigh investigative needs.
Mr. Wijngaarden finally argued that the proposed release conditions were overly restrictive. He argued that travel bans were unnecessary given the lack of safe destination countries and relevant contacts abroad, and a blanket contact covering all witnesses, including family members, would unduly interfere with the suspect’s private life. He proposed limiting such bans to key witnesses and extending daily freedom of movement from two to at least five hours to enable meetings with counsel.
After a recess, the Public Prosecutor noted that the seizure of the wife’s phone was a covert, non-violent measure, proportional and necessary given the importance of witnesses in the case. The Prosecutor strongly rejected the notion that the correspondence between the wife and her brother was covered by confidentiality. The defense’s arguments about the potential exclusion of evidence were argued to be premature and should be addressed at the substantive hearing.
The Prosecutor emphasized that sufficient grounds remain for pre-trial detention, particularly given the risk of collusion as the suspect and his family actively communicate about witnesses, and upcoming witness interviews reinforce this risk. When asked about possible contact between the wife and prosecution witnesses, the Prosecutor stated that there was no direct evidence of prior “influencing” or “interference,” but noted that this may be due to the fact that many witnesses have yet to be interviewed.
Regarding the probation report, the Prosecutor questioned the reliability and feasibility of the proposed conditions for release. The report was produced quickly and may have overlooked key information. The Prosecutor argued that some of the proposed conditions, like monitoring the suspect’s devices or online activity, are impractical or unenforceable. The Prosecutor concluded that the office opposes suspension. However, if detention were to be suspended, contact bans for witnesses (except family) should be maintained, while geographic restrictions are largely unnecessary.
After more than an hour recess, the court returned to deliver its verdict. The request to suspend pre-trial detention was denied. Given the seriousness of the charges and the ongoing investigation, including scheduled witness interviews and their importance to this case, the risk of collusion remains highly significant. While noting that no concrete evidence of witness interference was presented, the court held that the seizure of the wife’s phone does not materially affect the suspect’s personal interests. The court declined to rule on the potential exclusion of evidence obtained through investigative measures, noting that such matters are reserved for the substantive hearing. It also found that the probation report provided insufficient guidance on mitigating the risk of collusion.
The court ordered the suspect to remain in pre-trial detention until the next hearing, but emphasized the need for a new probation report, requesting that the Prosecutor’s Office commission it without delay.
The next pre-trial hearing is scheduled for December 15 at 13:30. Representatives of the victims will be notified accordingly.
On 14 July 2025, 11:00 AM, a pro forma hearing in the ‘Ardech’ case was held in the District Court of the Hague. The suspect was present, as well as relatives of the suspect and an interpreter. The injured party was represented by the victim’s counsel.
The Court first discussed the progress of the investigation, followed by the defense’s requests, and then addressed the issue of pre-trial detention.
Regarding the investigation, the Court noted it remains ongoing, with twenty-seven witnesses yet to be heard, both in Rwanda and elsewhere. Three trips to Rwanda have been scheduled by the Prosecution. “Gacaca trial” documents—records from Rwanda’s former community-based justice system—have been obtained and translated but not yet fully analyzed. Additional materials, including de-anonymized interview transcripts and case files from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) are pending and may generate further investigative requests. Hence, the Court does not expect the substantive trial to start before early 2026. The Prosecution would like to proceed with the trial within six months.
The Court then turned to the defense’s requests. The defense renewed its request to hear four witnesses previously denied by the investigating judge, arguing they could provide insight into the genocide, the suspect’s conduct therein, the Gacaca trials, and the reliability of other witnesses. These witnesses include a Tutsi woman (the wife of a prominent Tutsi politician at the time), who had testified in favour of the accused, stating that he had rescued Tutsi children and adults from an orphanage. In support of its request, the defense submitted a short video fragment containing an interview with the woman that was screened during the hearing.
While the occurrences in this orphanage are not directly relevant to the alleged crimes committed by the suspect elsewhere, the defense argued that it would counteract the suspect’s alleged genocidal intent.
Further requested witnesses included a former Gacaca judge, who could testify to the reliability of the Gacaca proceedings and certain witnesses, and to the absence of Gacaca proceedings against the defendant. The defense further highlighted the importance of recently added Gacaca records, further evidence material and files from the Rwandan Prosecutor General and the ICTR, noting that these may give rise to additional motions once fully analyzed.
The prosecution opposed the defense’s requests, stating first that new supporting materials (such as interview transcripts) were submitted too recently and should have been presented all together, in earlier proceedings. Another point of criticism against the defense related to them presenting witness names to individuals in Rwanda, stressing privacy and safety risks for those witnesses, and undermining the integrity of the investigation. Regarding the hearing of the four witnesses, the prosecution argued that the four witnesses are irrelevant, as they lack direct knowledge of the incidents and rely solely on Gacaca proceedings. The prosecution added that testimony about the suspect’s alleged aid to Tutsis was unrelated to the charges and, under existing jurisprudence, does not exclude involvement in crimes.
The victim’s counsel then inquired whether the choice of the applicable law could already be assessed, though the final case file was still awaited. While usually this point can only be addressed after hearing all witnesses, the prosecutor sided with the victim counsel and suggested addressing this earlier. The presiding judge found this practical, while the defense wished to consult further.
The Court then turned to the question of whether the suspect’s pre-trial detention should be continued.
The defense argued that the suspect’s detention, lasting 21 months, violates Article 5(3) of the ECHR on the right to a trial within a reasonable time, emphasizing that pre-trial detention should be exceptional even for serious crimes. General circumstances could no longer suffice as a basis for continued detention and that any risk of collusion or influence on witnesses is speculative, unsupported by evidence. The slow pace of the investigation, due to unheard witnesses, untranslated material and multiple rogatory trips required, projects several more years of proceedings. The defense requested either release or suspension of detention under strict conditions, noting that the suspect is prepared to comply.
The prosecution countered that delays are not due to lack of urgency or resources, but rather the complexity and scope of the investigation, the number of witnesses, and procedural necessities. Many of the defense’s proposed witnesses are irrelevant or insufficiently substantiated, and former grounds for detention, including risk of collusion, public order concerns, and ongoing investigative needs, remain valid. The prosecution emphasized that no exceptional circumstances exist to justify release, citing jurisprudence where exceptional reasons (such as medical) were required.
Before announcing a brief recess, the court permitted the suspect to speak. In French, the suspect expressed his desire to be at home with his spouse, who had experienced a robbery during his absence.
The court resumed with its decisions. Regarding the defense’s request to hear additional witnesses, all four were denied. In view of the court, the witnesses could not provide relevant testimony about the defendant or were unnecessary, as the defense had already had the opportunity to present counter-evidence, and relevant witnesses had been heard regarding genocidal intent.
The court furthermore decided not to lift or suspend the suspect’s pre-trial detention, finding that there are still sufficient grounds to justify the continued detention. The court noted the strong suspicion of involvement in extremely serious crimes, which continue to shock the international legal order even years later.
Although the weight of the defendant’s personal interests have increased after 651 days in detention, the court found that the interests of the criminal proceedings still prevail. However, the court did request the Public Prosecutor to prepare a suspension report, which should clarify, before the next pro forma hearing, whether and under what conditions the suspect might be able to await trial in liberty. This will be reviewed at the next hearing.
The next pro forma hearing is scheduled for 23 September at 1:30 PM.