26th November marked the final hearing in the Pearce investigation, during which the victim’s representatives, the prosecution, and the defense delivered their closing arguments.

The victim’s representatives opened by emphasizing that Walid is being prosecuted for participation in a criminal organization responsible for hostage-taking, extortion, violent offenses, sexual offenses, and the violent smuggling of migrants, involving serious risk to life and for payment. The case file clearly demonstrates that migrants forced to take the Central Mediterranean Route were exposed to these practices. Walid was an integral part of the organization and involved in specific operational practices.

For the purpose of the compensation claims, the representatives argued, it is irrelevant which specific acts were committed by Walid or by Libyan actors; what matters is whether his involvement suffices for criminal participation and, by extension, civil liability. They highlighted that the compensation claims, both in substance and amount, were uncontested. 

The representatives also rejected the defense’s criticism of the experts, noting that the court has already confirmed their competence in Libyan liability law. They underscored the experts’ strong professional qualifications: Mr. Otto for his extensive knowledge of Egyptian law, which is highly relevant given the strong similarities between the Egyptian and Libyan civil codes, and Professor Ibrahim for his expertise in Libyan obligations law, having supervised students and doctoral candidates in liability law. They stressed that the experts’ legal framework is accurate, and that the defense never raised specific questions or objections to their findings. They therefore dismissed the defense’s claim that unclear Libyan law would place an undue burden on the proceedings, noting that the defense had ample opportunity during earlier hearings to specify any uncertainties.

The prosecution then replied to the defense’s plea. Although the public prosecutor had been declared inadmissible for charges of money-laundering and hawala banking, they rejected the claim that this inadmissibility ruling removes all financial elements from the case. They explained that this ruling merely prevents a judicial decision on those specific counts. However, the financial components remain central to the extortion and human-smuggling charges and must still be assessed in full. 

The prosecution also addressed the defense’s jurisdictional challenges. They referred to their duty to prosecute, grounded in the rights to human dignity, life, and physical and mental integrity, as well as the prohibition of torture (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). They argued that Dutch jurisdiction is established on multiple grounds: the offenses were partially committed in the Netherlands, and the presence of many survivors in the country further grounds jurisdiction under Article 2 of the Dutch Criminal Code. The prosecution also cited an alternative basis under Article 8c DCC, which permits prosecution of foreign nationals who have committed serious crimes, and cannot be tried elsewhere where they are present on Dutch soil. Walid satisfies these criteria, the prosecution argued.

The prosecution furthermore rejected the defense’s claims regarding Italy as the intended destination of the smuggling. They noted that human smuggling includes “assistance with entry, transit, and stay,” which is satisfied here: all but one witness reside in the Netherlands, and several indicated their intention was to come to the Netherlands. The fact that the route runs from Eritrea to Sudan, then from Sudan to Libya, and then from Libya to Italy does not alter the situation: Italy serves only as a transit country. The prosecution also refuted the argument that a Libyan named Mussa Diap bore sole responsibility in the camps and that Walid cannot be linked to specific Libyan camps. They emphasized that, while Diap may have held a leadership role, this does not absolve Walid of liability; multiple witnesses and communications show that Walid was actively involved in operations within the camps, including those the defense claims he was not reported to have participated in.

The defense maintained that their jurisdictional challenge, supported by Dr. Yanev’s memorandum, had not been substantively answered. They emphasized that the prosecution has not provided legal arguments responding to the core points of their analysis, including the requirement to establish jurisdiction for each individual act and each victim. The defense argued that the prosecution incorrectly assumes that Article 197 of the Dutch Criminal Code implicitly provides jurisdiction, when in fact this article defines the substantive offenses, not prosecutorial authority. The defense also disputed the claim that the Netherlands was the intended destination of the smuggling route. According to the case files, the smuggling ended in Italy, and no investigation was conducted into subsequent travel to the Netherlands. They argued that the prosecution’s repeated assertion that migrants were brought to the Netherlands misrepresents the indictment and the factual record. Furthermore, the defense rejected the application of Article 8c DCC, noting that it applies only to foreign nationals evading prosecution who cannot be extradited. Walid is in the Netherlands as a result of extradition and detention, so Article 8c cannot apply. Finally, the defense highlighted the relevance of Walid’s Ethiopian conviction. According to the defense, the Ethiopian authorities explicitly requested that Walid serve the remainder of his sentence upon his transfer to the Netherlands, and this should be taken into account during sentencing.

Walid was then given the final word, in which he thanked the court but stated that he does not understand why he is in the Netherlands and why he is being prosecuted here.

The Presiding Judge concluded the hearings and scheduled the judgment for January 27th, 2026, at 13:10.

He noted that the judgment could be delivered earlier; if so, the parties will be notified at least one week in advance. There will be a livestream on the day of the ruling, and the verdict will be published shortly thereafter.

The Presiding Judge also indicated that Mr. Kidane, Walid’s alleged co-perpetrator, may still be extradited to the Netherlands before the judgment. Should this occur, he will be heard as a witness.

For now, the judgment remains set for January 27th at 13:10.

24th November marked the sixth hearing in the Pearce investigation, which was devoted to the defense’s closing arguments. 

Before presenting their central arguments, the defense offered several preliminary remarks. They began by acknowledging that the victims’ statements reflect real human experiences and emphasised that they did not seek to dispute their truthfulness or gravity. Nonetheless, they stressed that the core issues before the court, as they would present them today, are whether this case falls within the jurisdiction of a Dutch criminal court, and whether the defendant’s involvement and criminal liability can be established legally and convincingly.

The defense further noted that the suspect has already been sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment in Ethiopia, which, in their view, undermines the prosecution’s portrayal of him as an “unpunished human trafficker who is only now being brought to justice in the Netherlands.” The defense also disputed the suggestion that the suspect was uncooperative with the Dutch authorities in establishing his identity. On the contrary, they stated, he has repeatedly testified about who he is and how he has become the victim of identity theft.

The defense then outlined the broader context of migration routes in Africa and the conditions within Libyan detention camps, describing a widespread and highly decentralised phenomenon in which numerous groups operate within the same camp structures. According to the defense, Walid cannot be specifically linked to the camps, or, in any event, his role was no different from that of “many other smugglers.” The actual authority in the camps, they argued, rested with the Libyan actors in control.

Principal argument: lack of jurisdiction
The defense argued that the case rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of Dutch jurisdiction and that the Public Prosecution Service should therefore be declared inadmissible to prosecute the case. Under Dutch law, jurisdiction requires a connection to the Netherlands—either a Dutch victim or perpetrator, or conduct (partially) occurring on Dutch territory. According to the defense, no such nexus exists in this case. They submitted that, while Dutch courts may assert jurisdiction over smuggling operations directed towards the Netherlands, the route at issue was aimed at Italy, after which migrants continued their journeys independently. The place of the crime, or locus delicti, therefore lies outside the Netherlands. 

To substantiate their position, the defense submitted a memorandum prepared specifically for this case by Dr. Yanev, a specialist in questions of jurisdiction. According to Dr. Yanev, “the locus delicti is only in the Netherlands if the individuals had the intent for the Netherlands to be the concrete and direct final destination of the smuggling. Otherwise, the human-smuggling offense is completed upon arrival in the country of destination — in this case, Italy.”

The defense also refuted the prosecution’s argument that, because relatives of survivors were extorted from within the Netherlands, part of the criminal organization’s conduct occurred on Dutch territory. Relying on jurisprudence from the MH17 proceedings, the defense stressed that jurisdiction must be established for each count and each victim individually, and that potential jurisdiction arising from extortion cannot serve as a legal basis for the remainder of the indictment. In MH17, jurisdiction over Dutch victims rested on the Dutch Criminal Code; for non-Dutch victims, it was based solely on the Tallinn Treaty, under which Ukraine transferred jurisdiction to the Netherlands. In the present case, no such treaty exists. Additionally, the defense argued that the fact that some survivors later travelled to and now reside in the Netherlands does not render them ‘Dutch victims’ for the purposes of establishing Dutch jurisdiction.

The defense then proceeded to outline, count by count and survivor by survivor, why they consider jurisdiction to be lacking in every instance. With respect to the charged smuggling offences, they argued that the Netherlands does not exercise “general jurisdiction” over human smuggling committed entirely abroad by a foreign national. Although legislative amendments expanding jurisdiction are underway, they are not yet in force. For each of the smuggling instances charged (arrivals in Augusta, Messina, Pozzallo, and Lampedusa), the defense relied on witness statements to show that Italy was the intended final destination and that no concrete link to the Netherlands exists. Arrival lists also indicate that only a small percentage of the smuggled individuals ultimately ended up in the Netherlands. “The fact that a witness later travelled on to the Netherlands and now resides there does not in itself constitute a circumstance that would render the smuggling offence as having been committed in the Netherlands,” the defence maintained. They also argued that ransom payments were not made from the Netherlands—or, at minimum, that this cannot be established with sufficient certainty.

Regarding the charge of participation in a criminal organization, the defense emphasized that jurisdiction must be assessed for each offense the organization allegedly intended to commit. According to a ruling by the Arnhem Court of Appeal, participation in a criminal organization abroad by a non-Dutch suspect does not, in itself, confer jurisdiction on Dutch courts. Participation in Libya and Italy, without Dutch victims, acts of execution on Dutch territory, or another independent legal basis, cannot establish jurisdiction. Foreign affairs, they argued, cannot be adjudicated in the Netherlands “through the back door.” As there is no Dutch locus delicti for the organization or for the crimes it allegedly intended to commit, the Public Prosecution Service must be declared inadmissible under Article 140 of the Dutch Criminal Code. The same applies to the hostage-taking and the violent and sexual offenses, all of which occurred in Libya between foreign parties. Jurisdiction could arise only for extortion offenses where a payment actually took place in or from the Netherlands.

The defense concluded that the Netherlands lacks jurisdiction for all charges. The Public Prosecution Service must therefore be declared inadmissible in its entirety, such that the court need not address the merits of the case.

Considerations relating to the evidence
Should the court dismiss their primary jurisdictional objection, the defense also challenged the evidentiary basis of the case, holding that there is no legal and convincing evidence supporting the allegations. They referred to the risk of “source confusion” among survivors due to the extensive social media coverage surrounding Walid, pointed to contradictions in their statements, and raised the possibility that some of the survivors included in the case had in fact been smuggled by Kidane rather than by Walid. The defence further disputed the prosecution’s assertion that Kidane, Walid, and the other suspects cooperated, portraying them instead as independent groups operating in parallel—an interpretation that contradicts multiple survivor accounts.

The defense concluded that none of the charges can be proven legally and convincingly and therefore argued for a full acquittal.

Claims by injured parties
Regarding the civil claims submitted by the injured parties, the defense argued that these should be declared inadmissible. First, they contended that the court lacks jurisdiction, which would also render the Public Prosecutor inadmissible. In the alternative, they maintained that the claims should be rejected because the underlying offenses cannot be proven. In the further alternative, (if the court dismisses their jurisdictional and evidentiary objections) the defense submitted that the claims should still be declared inadmissible due to the alleged “incompetence” of the Libyan law experts, Otto and Ibrahim, who were engaged to develop the legal basis for the victims’ claims. According to the defense, although these individuals may be knowledgeable in other legal fields—such as Libyan family law, Egyptian administrative law, general principles of law, and immovable property—they have not recently published on, nor been involved in, Libyan civil liability or human smuggling proceedings. Finally, the defense argued that adjudicating the victims’ claims within the criminal proceedings would impose an excessive burden on the trial and that such claims should instead be brought before a civil court.

Sentencing 
The final part of the defense’s closing argument addressed the potential sentence, should the court find the suspect guilty. The defense argued that the prosecution’s portrayal of their client as the leader of an international network does not reflect reality, and that, contrary to the prosecution’s position, the prior eighteen-year sentence imposed in Ethiopia must be taken into account to prevent disproportionate punishment.

The defense maintained that the Ethiopian conviction concerns essentially the same conduct, and that imposing an additional sentence in the Netherlands would exceed the statutory maximum by a wide margin. 

The Prosecution noted that Ethiopia has asked the Netherlands to take over the case, but no decision has been made. The defence requested clarification on whether any additional extradition documents exist, and the Prosecution stated that none are available.

The case will resume on Wednesday, 26th November, at 09:30 for the final day of trial, which will include the closing statements of the victims’ representatives, the prosecution’s reply and the defense’s rejoinder, and the scheduling of the judgment date.

19th November marked the fifth hearing in the Pearce investigation, which was dedicated to the Public Prosecution Service’s requisitoir and sentencing request.

“You hear that a lot can happen in the Sahara. You know you can drown in the sea. You know that women can be raped in Libya, and that men may be tortured. You know that beforehand. But you have a goal and you want to achieve it, and you think: ‘Maybe I’ll survive this,’ and you don’t think about what might happen. You just want to continue your journey.”

With this quote, the Public Prosecutor opened the session.

The prosecutors started their requisitoir with an outline of the broader context of this case: the many thousands of Eritreans who flee widespread human rights abuses, the dangers of the Sahara and the Central Mediterranean Route, including figures of fatalities in the Mediterranean Sea, and the way stricter border controls push people into ever more lethal journeys. They described how Eritrean refugees become dependent on international smuggling networks that operate from Libya, Sudan, and Ethiopia, where migrants are held in large camps, tortured, extorted, and abused so that families—in the Netherlands or elsewhere—can be pressured to pay. They also explained why this case is being tried in the Netherlands: the severity of the crimes, the country’s direct involvement through the extortion of relatives on Dutch soil, and the resulting jurisdiction under Article 2 Sr.

The Prosecution outlined how the investigation had developed, and addressed the suspect’s identity. Despite overwhelming evidence, including social media records and witness identifications, the suspect continues to deny that he is Walid. He claims a different name, corresponding to a passport that authorities have investigated and found to be false. The prosecution finally emphasized that human smuggling is far from a “victimless crime.”

The public prosecutors then turned to the charges and the evidence. The suspect faces ten counts of human smuggling and extortion, as well as a charge of directing a criminal organization whose activities included facilitating human smuggling. The prosecutors began by presenting aerial images and maps of seven Libyan “camps”—detention sites uncovered in the investigation—describing them as barracks and barns, and former livestock farms. They explained how each site was linked to Walid and his co-perpetrator Kidane, and how all lacked even the most basic facilities. One witness recounted that in Kufra, the camp known as “the one with the date trees,” there was not even a roof to sleep under.

Moving through each count of human smuggling and extortion, the prosecution then  demonstrated the evidentiary basis for each count. They drew extensively on survivor testimonies; accounts that all detailed the appalling conditions in the camps in Libya and along the entire Central Meditation migration Route (CMR). Testimonies all described the chronic lack of food, water, sanitation, and medical care, the pervasive torture and sexual violence, and fatalities in the camps. The prosecutor noted that some people were rescued weighing only 30 kilograms, and that water was sometimes mixed with gasoline to prevent people from drinking “too much.” Others detailed the dangerous transports between camps. Several witnesses recounted a fatal truck accident, and one described how their group was once forced into the back of a truck, where they had to cut open the canvas covering to help a fellow migrant who had fallen critically ill, foaming at the mouth.

The testimonies also described the sea crossing, including the boats (that were dangerously overcrowded and wholly unfit for sea), how migrants were forced aboard, the life-threatening conditions, illness, and the lack of food, water, and sanitation and life-vests, as well as the subsequent rescue efforts. One witness described how men were forced into a “hole” at the bottom of a wooden boat, where they could barely breathe and were cramped under the passengers on the upper deck, before chaos erupted when the crew abandoned the vessel, leaving it adrift with a broken motor. Supported by “rescue reports” and video and photographic evidence, the prosecution highlighted the severe medical conditions reported by survivors and rescue teams, the large numbers of people smuggled by Walid and his accomplices, and the substantial profits generated by each of the charged operations.

After describing and substantiating each count of human smuggling and extortion, the prosecutors turned to the charge of membership in a criminal organization (in a leadership role). By outlining the structure of the organization and the collaboration between Walid, Kidane, and others identified in the investigation—including “Mussa,” the Libyan landowner, and “Henok,” Kidane’s brother—the prosecutors demonstrated how and why Walid held a leadership role within the network. The prosecution drew on digital evidence — including conversations between Facebook accounts linked to Walid and Kidane, to demonstrate the coordination and command structure within the smuggling network.  Witness testimony further described how Walid directed his staff in the camps, referred to as “kapos,” and how groups of migrants were divided between Walid and Kidane, with each leader exercising authority over their assigned groups, before the groups were later regrouped during the boat crossings.

The prosecution concluded with their sentencing request. They first argued for the acceptance of the damages claimed by the injured parties, with the exception of the costs claimed pro memori (i.e., for anticipated or not yet quantified damages). They emphasized that the personal circumstances of the suspect do not warrant any sentence mitigation or reduce his accountability and noted that Walid still has an 18-year prison sentence to serve in Ethiopia. In the prosecution’s view, this likewise does not justify any reduction of his sentence in the Netherlands.

Referring to the exceptional scale of the case, the immense harm suffered by those detained by Walid, and the broader ripple effects of his actions on the diaspora community, EU and Dutch authorities, and Dutch society more generally—including the psychological impact on migrant communities, which can fuel anti-immigration sentiment—the prosecution concluded that, given the impossibility of requesting a life sentence, only the statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment would adequately reflect the seriousness and scope of the offenses. Accordingly, the prosecutors requested a 20-year prison sentence for Walid.

The hearing will continue on Monday, 24 November, when the defense will deliver its oral plea.

The hearing on 17th November focused on the victims’ right to speak. The courtroom was full, with additional rooms and livestreams (in multiple languages, including Tigrinya) arranged to ensure public access. Privacy measures were being taken: no photos, and witnesses were not shown on camera.

The victims’ lawyers described the appalling conditions in the Libyan detention camps allegedly controlled by Walid. According to the lawyer, hundreds of migrants were confined for months in overcrowded, unsanitary warehouses, suffering from hunger, disease, and a complete lack of hygiene. People died due to neglect. Violence and extortion were systematic: detainees were beaten daily, often after being soaked with water to intensify pain, and families were called during torture sessions to pressure them into paying ransom. Sexual violence was also part of this pattern, including repeated rape by Walid. Despite this brutality, detainees showed solidarity, caring for each other in desperate circumstances. Victims that survived the camps were forced onto unseaworthy boats, some even without an engine, abandoned to fate or driven to death.

One of the victims, E, described being held for days without food or water, watching people on the brink of death. During transport in sealed trucks, some detainees could not breathe, and E had to resuscitate one of them. Walid told people he had paid $5,000 for them and demanded repayment. E recalled how people were dying after days of sickness and how his plea for medical help led to brutal retaliation: Walid beat him with a water hose and pressed a gun to his head before others intervened. He returned to the warehouse with a bloodied back, hiding his injuries so as not to alarm others. E also spoke of the terror of seeing a teenage girl targeted by Walid and her desperate cry for help. His testimony conveyed not only his own suffering but also the pain of others. He concluded: “For the court Walid may be a suspect, but for me he is a perpetrator – I was there, I saw everything.”

Another victim, N, reflected on how physical scars may fade, but psychological wounds remain. He spoke of overwhelming stress and lasting trauma, particularly for women who endured sexual violence yet remain silent due to cultural stigma. His words highlighted the enduring impact of these crimes. Other testimonies revealed deep psychological damage, persistent fear of Walid even in the Netherlands, and recurring nightmares of his threats.

Walid declined to answer any questions, invoking his right to remain silent. He disputes being the person identified by witnesses, though the court emphasized that recognition by victims is key.

The hearing highlighted the courage of victims in speaking out despite risks, the systematic abuse and exploitation of migrants in Libya, and the ongoing impact on survivors: trauma, fear, and loss of trust.

The third substantive hearing in the Pearce investigation case commenced on November 5, 2025, at the Court of Zwolle. The suspect was present and represented by counsel, with an interpreter also in attendance. The victims’ lawyers were also present.

This session focused on four charges against the suspect: two counts of human smuggling (each comprising multiple counts), extortion, and leadership in a criminal organization.

Before the evidentiary discussion began, the victims’ lawyers raised a procedural matter. Another victim requested to join the proceedings to seek reparations (“voeging als benadeelde partij”), and no objections were raised.

The Court examined two separate arrivals of migrants in Italy, focusing first on 24 April 2018.

Facts 5 and 6: human smuggling and extortion
A Rescue Report described ‘Sea Watch 3’ rescuing approximately 95 people from an overcrowded blue rubber boat. The boat was approximately 10–12 meters long and carried no life jackets. No deaths occurred; most people were in generally good condition, though many suffered from scabies, and three were hospitalized. Most were Eritrean and had departed from the Libyan coast. Survivors reported that the group ran into trouble after about an hour at sea. Another boat returned to Libya, while this one continued, spending roughly seventeen hours at sea. Some survivors immediately reported being detained in Libya, mentioning random payments and naming smugglers involved, including Walid.

The presiding judge then reviewed witness testimonies from survivors.

A young female witness, aged eighteen, described being kidnapped in Libya and held for about a year in the town of Bani Walid under the control of smugglers Walid and Kidane. She recounted extreme abuse: starvation, constant beatings, and the rape of women by Walid’s men. Although she herself was not raped, she was severely beaten after resisting an assault. Conditions were filthy and overcrowded, with no medical care; many detainees died from torture, hunger, or accidents. Walid had four assistants who constantly beat detainees and forced them to call their families to demand ransom. Prisoners were woken at night to make phone calls and were beaten throughout the day. One Eritrean died, and many more Somalis were tortured with electric wires and killed, often due to starvation and mistreatment. Most had to pay ransom multiple times. After her family paid USD 3,000, she was forced onto an overcrowded rubber boat with 98 people for an overnight journey before being rescued by Sea Watch.

The prosecutor noted that even repeated payments did not guarantee release—Walid decided who could leave at his discretion. If Walid disliked someone, payment made no difference.

Nine additional witnesses described similar captivity in Bani Walid, detailing systematic violence, extortion, and inhumane conditions under Walid’s control.

Witness “D” described being detained for six months in a warehouse holding approximately 1,700 people. Detainees were locked in with minimal food and deprived of hygiene, beaten daily. He was forced to call his family to pay a ransom of USD 5,500, and bore scars from beatings with wooden sticks. Those unable to pay were tortured or forced to work as guards, beating others on Walid’s orders.

Witness 78 confirmed that Walid reportedly told them that he had ‘paid for them’ and that they now had to reimburse him USD 3,500 for “food and water.”  Meals were extremely scarce, with a single plate shared among eight people. Walid controlled the “kapos” (guards) who carried out his orders, though a higher-ranking man named Mussa appeared to be in overall command. When Mussa was present, the beatings stopped; otherwise, Walid’s men frequently whipped detainees with hoses. Many prisoners died from disease or mistreatment.

Witness S described pregnant women being beaten, doused with cold water, and starved if they could not pay. Attempted escapees were publicly beaten, often in Walid’s presence. Even after ransom payments, she remained detained for four more months before being sent to sea while ill.

The Prosecutor paused to question Walid. During an earlier statement to law enforcement, Walid had claimed that the photos identifying him were circulated by others attempting to discredit him. When asked about this in court, Walid invoked his right to remain silent. 

Fact 7: human smuggling
The Court considered another arrival in Italy under charge 7, focusing on witness testimonies in the absence of a Rescue Report. Witnesses described a different facility near the Libyan coast where migrants were held after leaving Bani Walid, before a perilous sea crossing.

Walid was consistently identified as the central figure controlling the smuggling and detention of large groups, often directly or indirectly inflicting violence with a pistol or wooden stick. People were held in overcrowded, unsafe warehouses before being forced on poorly equipped boats without sufficient food, water, sanitation, or life jackets. Payments were demanded under duress, and subordinates carried out much of the abuse. Several witnesses reported illness or death among migrants without medical care, and some women were allegedly targeted for sexual abuse. Walid exercised strict control over who could proceed on the journey, creating fear and chaos among the people, and was recognized as the person in ultimate authority. Overall, he is portrayed as ruthless, inhumane, and responsible for extreme suffering.

One witness described the guards of the facility (Eritreans and Libyans) beating detainees for making any noise, as well as extremely limited food and water, and showers only once every two weeks. Her spouse detailed transport from the hall to a wooden boat with a one-meter-wide hole, overcrowded with about 400 people, fumes, vomiting, and minimal provisions. The boat’s motor failed, and the towing vessel detached, causing panic and danger.

Her spouse described how migrants were transported from the large, overcrowded hall onto a small wooden boat with a one-meter-wide hole. The men were beaten to make them enter the hole. Conditions were extremely harsh: overcrowding, gasoline fumes, vomiting, minimal food and water, limited sanitation, and no life jackets. During the crossing, the boat’s motor failed, and the towing vessel detached, triggering panic and chaos as people struggled to maintain their balance. The person steering abandoned the vessel by swimming to the other ship, leaving the passengers in a perilous situation.

The defense noted that witnesses indicated Walid may not have overseen the sea crossing itself, as he was absent once the group left the hall.

Fact 1: leadership of a criminal organization
The final charge discussed was Walid’s alleged leadership role in a criminal organization. The judge noted that most relevant materials had been reviewed in the witness testimonies discussed earlier.  Additionally, several digital messages would be relevant for this charge.

There was discussion about whether to review the evidence overview; it was decided to discuss it but not go through individual witness statements. Facebook messages and other documents were highlighted by the prosecutor as remaining evidence, showing coordination between Walid and Kidane, including the number of people transported, price agreements, payments, names, and instructions for handling migrants. For example, the account that the investigative team had linked to Kidane wrote to Walid: “If Achmed asks you, say that we let 180 people leave,” and “How large is the group that [name] was with? For those with [name], I charged 250 dollars instead of 300. 

The hearing concluded with two procedural matters and the scheduling of further hearings. Mr. Vossenbergh (the victims’ representative) was asked if they wanted to provide further submissions on November 17, either in whole or in response to specific questions. It was left to their discretion.

The schedule going forward was outlined as follows

1. Tuesday, November 11: no session needed
2. Monday, November 17: continuation of victims’ claims and speaking rights in the morning, followed by the personal circumstances of the suspect in the afternoon.
3. Tuesday, November 18: reserved day, possibly canceled; if Kidane is extradited to the Netherlands, he may be required to testify. Details will be finalized later.

On 4 November 2025, the District Court of Zwolle held the second hearing in the Pearce case, in which an Eritrean man known as ‘Walid’ stands trial for alleged involvement in large-scale human smuggling from Libya to Europe, as well as related offences including extortion, assault, and sexual violence.

During this session, the Court discussed approximately twenty witness statements relating to several of the charges under consideration. The statements, taken from victims and witnesses, described their experiences while held in captivity in Libya. Many accounts referred not only to Walid but also to Kidane.

Witnesses gave consistent descriptions of violence, coercion, and exploitation. Several recurring elements emerged from the testimonies:

• Physical abuse: Witnesses reported being beaten with hoses by so-called kapos (assistants working under Walid’s supervision). Some stated that Walid was present and sometimes personally participated in the beatings.
• Extortion through violence: Victims described being forced to call family members daily while being beaten, in order to pressure relatives to send ransom money. Those who had not yet paid reportedly faced harsher treatment, including being doused with hot or cold water and beaten while rolling on the ground.
• Ransom payments: Many witnesses said they had to pay twice – first to arrange their journey to Europe and again after being detained in Libya. The reported amounts ranged between USD 1,500 and 6,000.
• Sexual violence: Several witnesses spoke about girls being taken away and later returning, often in silence. Although many survivors did not discuss sexual violence openly, witnesses said it was widely known that some women and girls were forced to have sex with Walid. According to testimony, some became pregnant; many mothers and infants did not survive childbirth due to the conditions in the camp.
• Living conditions: Witnesses described overcrowded warehouses holding around 1,000 people, with poor hygiene, fleas, vermin, and no access to medical care. Food consisted of a small portion of plain pasta shared between groups of eight, served once or twice a day.
• Departure to Europe: After making the payments, migrants were transported by car or truck to a house and later to the coast, where boats were waiting. According to the testimonies, the vessels were initially operated by Libyan or Arab men, who would transfer to another boat mid-sea, leaving the migrants adrift without an engine.
• Comparison with Kidane: Witnesses who had experienced both detention sites described the conditions under Walid as particularly severe, with less food and more frequent violence.

In addition to oral testimony, the Court reviewed supporting evidence, including Facebook messages and recorded phone calls. Witnesses were also shown photographs of Walid and Kidane, which they used to confirm the men’s identities.

The next hearing is scheduled for 5 November, when the Court will continue examining factual elements related to the charges of human smuggling and violence.

On 3 November 2025, the trial of the man known as Walid opened before the Court of Zwolle. The case forms part of the broader Pearce investigation, launched by the Dutch authorities in 2017 to address large-scale migrant smuggling and extortion on the Central Mediterranean route between Libya and Italy. The charges include human smuggling, extortion, and participation in a criminal organisation. Allegations of money laundering were also filed but challenged on procedural grounds.

The prosecution argues that between 2015 and 2018, the accused collaborated with the smuggler known as Kidane in detaining and extorting migrants before their dangerous sea crossings. The defence maintains that the Dutch courts lack jurisdiction and that the accused has already been convicted for similar conduct in Ethiopia.

Identity of the Accused
At the outset of the hearing, the accused declared that he is not the person known as Walid. The judges noted that the case file contains multiple aliases, as well as photographs and documents suggesting otherwise. Several survivors have identified the accused as Walid, while forensic photo comparisons conducted in 2022 concluded that the person appearing in various images, including an Ethiopian police photograph, is most probably the same individual. The accused refused to answer further questions, stating that his lawyers would speak on his behalf.

Preliminary Motions by the Defence
Before the prosecution presented its case, the defence submitted several preliminary objections, asking the court to declare the Public Prosecution Service inadmissible:

• Ne bis in idem: the accused was convicted in Ethiopia in April 2023 for related smuggling and trafficking acts; the defence argues that the Dutch case concerns the same period and conduct.
  
• Violation of the speciality principle: the Ethiopian extradition order did not authorise prosecution for money-laundering offences.
  
• Lack of Dutch jurisdiction: the alleged crimes occurred primarily in Libya and Italy, with no sufficient connection to the Netherlands.
  
• Partial nullity of the summons: certain charges were said to be too vague for the accused to understand the specific allegations.

Prosecution’s Response
The Public Prosecutor rejected these arguments, emphasising that:

• The Ethiopian conviction concerns different victims and therefore does not bar this prosecution.
  
• The speciality principle limits sentence execution, not the ability to prosecute.
  
• The Netherlands has territorial jurisdiction because several victims now reside in the country and parts of the criminal operation—such as financial transactions and communications—took place from or through Dutch territory.
  

Court’s Interim Decisions
After deliberation, the judges delivered interlocutory rulings:

• The money-laundering and hawala charges are inadmissible at this stage due to extradition limitations.
  
• The ne bis in idem objection is rejected, as the Dutch proceedings involve different victims.
  
• The defence’s request to end the case for lack of jurisdiction is also rejected, since the court considers that sufficient links to the Netherlands may exist and should be examined at trial.
  
• Some counts were found insufficiently clear, and the court will clarify these in writing, but this does not prevent the case from proceeding.

Presentation of the Case
Following the rulings, the judges began outlining the extensive case file, consisting of more than 25,000 pages. The investigation includes statements from several survivors who travelled via Bani Walid, describing detention, violence, and extortion under the control of One survivor, a 15-year-old girl at the time, described spending months in a warehouse in Bani Walid, which she said was under Walid’s control. Detainees were beaten and threatened until their families paid for their release, around 3,800 dollars. Guards, referred to as kapos, enforced Walid’s orders, and food and water were scarce. She recalled that some people died of illness and that young women were taken away and never returned. When her family’s payment was confirmed, she and others were transported to the coast, placed on an overcrowded rubber boat, and later rescued near Messina, Sicily.

A second witness stated that she was detained in the same compound, where several smugglers – including Moussa, Kidane, and Walid – operated side by side. She described Walid as violent and arrogant, often ordering his men to beat people or pour cold water over them. Although pregnant at the time, she witnessed other detainees being mistreated and starved.

A third witness confirmed that Walid and Kidane each managed their own warehouses but cooperated in arranging departures. She testified that Walid selected young women and raped them, and that some became pregnant as a result. From her room she could hear screams and the sounds of beatings. When asked about hierarchy, she explained: “Walid and Kidane were equal, sometimes they filled the boats together.”

The prosecution also referred to social-media messages sent in February 2018, in which a user thanked “Walid” for “the arrival of the boat in Messina,” as well as photographs and diagrams linking testimonies to specific warehouses in Bani Walid.

These accounts form the basis of Offence 8, one of the key smuggling and extortion counts in the indictment, illustrating the systematic abuse and financial exploitation of migrants attempting to reach Europe through Libya.

Next Steps
The hearing closed with the accused maintaining his silence and denying any involvement. The court will reconvene on 4–5 November 2025 at 09:30 for continuation of the trial, during which further evidence and witness statements will be examined.

A final verdict is expected in January 2026.