ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:3982

Disclaimer: The translation of this judgment is solely intended to provide information. The text of the translation is an unofficial translation. Liability cannot be claimed for possible errors and/or omissions in this translation. The Dutch text of the judgment is the only authentic and formal text (ECLI-number: ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:330).

Judgment




OVERIJSSEL DISTRICT COURT

Criminal Law TeamMulti-judge division



Hearing location Zwolle





Public prosecution number: 71.253617.22 (P)
Date of judgment: 27 January 2026







Judgment in defended proceedings in the case of the public prosecutor against the defendant summoned by the Public Prosecution Service as:






[defendant] ,

born on [date of birth 1] 1983 in [place of birth] (Eritrea), with no fixed place of residence or abode in this country,
currently detained in P.I. [location 1] .








1The examination at the hearing



This judgment has been delivered following the examination at the public hearings of 3 November 2025, 4 November 2025, 5 November 2025, 17 November 2025, 19 November 2025, 24 November 2025,
26 November 2025 and 27 January 2026.



The District Court has taken cognisance of the application made by the public prosecutors (hereinafter referred to in the singular as the public prosecutor) and of what has been put forward by the defendant and his counsel, J. L. L’Homme, LLM and S. Plas, LLM, lawyers in Amsterdam (hereinafter referred to as the defence).




The District Court has also taken cognisance of the ‘victim statements’ presented by or on behalf of [witness 1], hereinafter also referred to as: [witness 1] (with witness number [number 1]), [witness 2], hereinafter also referred to as: [witness 2] (with witness number [number 2]), [witness 3], hereinafter also referred to as: [witness 3] (with witness number [number 3]) and [witness 4], hereinafter also referred to as: [witness 4] (with witness number [number 4]), and of what has been submitted on their behalf by A. Vossenberg, LLM and B. van Straaten, LLM, lawyers in Amsterdam, in the context of the civil-party claims filed by them.








2The charges



Following amendment of the indictment as referred to in Article 314a of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter: CCP) of 13 November 2023 and following amendments of the indictment as referred to in Article 313 CCP of 30 November 2023, 15 April 2025 and 22 September 2025, the allegation is, briefly and in substance, that in the period from 1 January 2015 to 9 March 2022 the defendant was guilty of:

count 1: participating in an organisation whose purpose was to commit people smuggling, hostage-taking, extortion, violent offences, sexual violent offences, money laundering and hawala (underground) banking, of which organisation he was the leader and/or founder and/or director;

counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, in each case: co-perpetration of people smuggling, while a danger to life was to be feared as a result of this offence and/or serious bodily injury was caused, and making an occupation or habit thereof;

counts 4 and 6, in each case: co-perpetration of extortion;

count 11: co-perpetration of (culpable) money laundering.





The full text of the version of the indictment as it read at the start of the hearing is attached to this judgment as Appendix I.






3The preliminary questions 1



3.1

The preliminary objections raised by the defence



In accordance with its written and submitted pleading notes, the defence raised four preliminary objections at the hearing of 3 November 2025. The District Court ruled on them at the hearing of 3 November 2025.



In accordance with its written and submitted pleading notes, the defence repeated these objections at the hearing of 24 November 2025 and supplemented them in part. Briefly stated, these objections comprise the following.


1. Partial nullity of the summons in respect of the people smuggling counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10
The summons must be declared partially null and void in respect of the elements (in any event) and and/or at least one or more (other) persons whose identity has remained unknown, because it is insufficiently clear to the defence what it must defend against in relation to these elements.


The summons must be declared partially null and void in respect of the element for gain, assisted in obtaining residence in (paragraph 2), because this element is not further specified in any way in the factual conduct alleged and, in addition, it cannot be inferred from the case file what is meant by this.



The summons must be declared partially null and void in respect of the phrase or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons, because it is unclear which specific acts are being alleged against the defendant.


2. No jurisdiction in respect of the charged offences

The Dutch criminal court has no jurisdiction in respect of the charged offences, because the offences were not committed in the Netherlands and, in addition, no other basis for jurisdiction follows from legislation or case law. Owing to the absence of jurisdiction, the Public Prosecution Service must be declared inadmissible in the prosecution in respect of all the charged offences.
In the preliminary phase, the defence limited its conclusion that the prosecution should be declared inadmissible owing to the absence of jurisdiction to the people smuggling counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. In oral argument, the defence additionally took the position that there is likewise no jurisdiction in respect of counts 1, 4 and 6, because the examination of the facts has not sufficiently shown that these offences were also committed in the Netherlands.


3. Breach of the ne bis in idem principle in respect of the people smuggling counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10
On 14 June 2021, the defendant was convicted by an Ethiopian judgment and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eighteen years and a fine of 200,000.00 birr for several people smuggling offences in the same period as charged in the present case. The prosecution of the defendant for counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 is therefore contrary to the ne bis in idem principle, as laid down in Article 68 of the Dutch Criminal Code (hereinafter: CC) in conjunction with European legislation and case law, as a result of which the Public Prosecution Service must be declared inadmissible in the prosecution in respect of these counts.

4. Breach of the speciality principle in respect of count 11, money laundering

In its request to Ethiopia for the defendant’s extradition, the Public Prosecution Service did not explicitly request extradition for money laundering, as a result of which, in respect of count 11, the speciality principle has been breached and, according to the defence, the Public Prosecution Service
must be declared inadmissible in the prosecution for this count and the related parts of count 1.




3.2

The position of the Public Prosecution Service



At the hearing of 3 November 2025, in accordance with a written and submitted response, the Public Prosecution Service took the position that there has been no breach of the ne bis in idem principle, that the summons is valid in its entirety, that the District Court has jurisdiction to hear all the offences charged in this case and that the public prosecutor is admissible in the prosecution.



With regard to the alleged breach of the speciality principle, the Public Prosecution Service took the position that an additional request for consent to prosecute in respect of money laundering can still be made and that, in the event of a conviction, the District Court may also choose to apply Article 9a CC as a consequence, if and insofar as the District Court



considers such a breach to be present.



With regard to jurisdiction, in the preliminary phase the Public Prosecution Service took the position that a decision on jurisdiction was not possible at that stage, because an examination of the charged offences was necessary in order to assess whether the Dutch court has jurisdiction.



At the hearing of 19 November 2025, in accordance with a written and submitted speech for the prosecution, the Public Prosecution Service argued in relation to jurisdiction that the Dutch court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 CC, because all offences were committed partly in the Netherlands.



At the hearing of 26 November 2025, in accordance with a written and submitted reply, the Public Prosecution Service argued in relation to jurisdiction that it maintained its previously formulated position and that, if the District Court is of the opinion that the Dutch court has no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 CC, jurisdiction nevertheless exists pursuant to Article 8c CC.




3.3

The judgment of the District Court



3.3.1.


Partial nullity of the summons in respect of the people smuggling counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9


and 10

After deliberation in chambers at the hearing of 3 November 2025, the District Court gave the following decision on the preliminary objections.



The District Court considers that, pursuant to Article 261 CCP, the summons must contain a statement of the offence charged, specifying approximately when and where it is alleged to have been committed, as well as the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. In interpreting this provision, it must continually be borne in mind that the central question is whether the defence can properly conduct its defence on the basis of the indictment. The statement of the offence must be clear and comprehensible, not internally contradictory and sufficiently factual. Against the background of the criminal case file and the preliminary investigation, there may reasonably be no doubt on the part of the defence as to which specific acts are alleged against the defendant. It must also be clear and comprehensible to the District Court what, specifically, it is required to examine in respect of each of the defendants separately.



The District Court is of the opinion that the defence’s objection succeeds in respect of the elements (in any event) and and/or at least one or more (other) persons whose identity has remained unknown, because these elements of the indictment are insufficiently clear and specified against the background of the extensive case file and the many names that appear in the case file. The District Court is therefore of the opinion that these elements of the summons do not meet the requirements of Article 261 CCP and declares these elements, in respect of counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, partially null and void to that extent.



The District Court rejects the objection in respect of the elements for gain, assisted in obtaining residence in (paragraph 2) and or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons. To that end, the District Court considers that the summons, in respect of those elements, against the background of the criminal case file in which specific acts by the defendant concerning the organisation of the journey and transport of the migrants are described, is not unclear and/or incomprehensible and meets the requirements of Article 261 CCP. It is sufficiently clear to the defence what it must defend against during the substantive debate.




3.3.2.

The jurisdiction of the Dutch criminal court



3.3.2.1. The assessment of the preliminary objection
After deliberation in chambers at the hearing of 3 November 2025, the District Court stated the following with regard to this preliminary objection.



The District Court considers that the suspicion relates to criminal offences that are alleged to have taken place in Libya (including in [place 1]) against non-Dutch persons, committed by a non-Dutch defendant. The District Court considers that there are connecting factors with the Netherlands in the case file and, furthermore, that the indictment states that the people smuggling offences were committed, among other places, in the Netherlands. For example, it appears that most of the migrants named in the indictment, after the crossing from Libya to Italy, ultimately arrived in the Netherlands. The question whether the people smuggling offences were committed, in whole or in part, in the Netherlands and, by extension, the question whether the intent of the defendant and/or his co-defendants was directed at the Netherlands as the migrants’ destination, are questions that can only be answered after all the facts have been presented and discussed at a public hearing and after the Public Prosecution Service and the defence have debated them. Only after that can the District Court form an opinion on the place or places of commission and, therefore, possibly on the jurisdiction of the Dutch criminal court over these charged offences. Against that background, the District Court is of the opinion that this preliminary objection is premature and that it cannot give a final ruling at this point. After the substantive hearing of the case, the District Court will assess in its final judgment whether, and to what extent, it has jurisdiction in respect of the offences.



3.3.2.2. The assessment of the jurisdiction objection repeated and supplemented in oral argument
On the basis of what was dealt with at the public hearings, the District Court has reached the following final judgment regarding the question whether the Dutch court has jurisdiction in respect of the charged offences.



The District Court will assess, for each individual offence and for each individual migrant, whether it has jurisdiction. Articles 2 to 8c inclusive CC lay down the various bases on which the Dutch criminal court may have jurisdiction.



The District Court finds that the defendant did not have Dutch nationality during the period charged, nor did he have a fixed place of residence or abode in the Netherlands. Nor has he subsequently acquired Dutch nationality or had a fixed place of residence or abode in the Netherlands. His detention on remand cannot qualify as such. This means that there is no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7 CC.



- Article 2 CC: the territoriality principle
Article 2 CC reads: ‘Dutch criminal law is applicable to anyone who commits any criminal offence in the Netherlands.’ Pursuant to Article 2 CC, the Netherlands has jurisdiction on the basis of the territoriality principle if the offence was also committed in the Netherlands. According to settled case law, a criminal offence may have several places of commission (locus delicti). In the literature this is referred to as the so-called ubiquity doctrine. This may give rise to positive conflicts of jurisdiction. If, in addition to places located in the Netherlands, places located outside the Netherlands may also be regarded as the locus delicti, prosecution of that criminal offence in the Netherlands is possible pursuant to the statutory provision referred to above, including in respect of the conduct forming part of that criminal offence that took place outside the Netherlands. 2
The locus delicti may be determined in various ways. Dutch law contains no provision for determining the place where an offence was committed. For that reason, legal scholarship has developed a number of common theories in order to determine the locus delicti, in which (i) the perpetrator’s conduct, (ii) the operation of the instrument and
(iii) the occurrence of the consequence are decisive. Wherever a constitutive element of the offence has manifested itself, the offence has been committed. The court is free, within the limits of the



indictment, to make a choice from these. For the question whether the criminal offence took place in the Netherlands, it is therefore not only relevant where the perpetrator performed an act. The place where the consequence prohibited by criminal law of the perpetrator’s conduct occurs may also serve, in whole or in part, as the locus delicti. 3 This is also known as the doctrine of the constitutive consequence. The idea behind this doctrine includes the notion that the act is punished in the state whose legal order has been harmed.



Against that background, the District Court considers the following with regard to the people smuggling offences charged under counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10.



In the opinion of the District Court, the defence’s position that the charged people smuggling offences were completed upon arrival in Italy is based on a misconception. In people smuggling as referred to in Article 197a CC, the interest of the state is at stake. That interest lies in ensuring that only persons who are entitled to do so reside on the territory of the state.4 At the moment when smuggled persons arrive illegally in the Netherlands, the legal interest protected by Article 197a CC is infringed in the Netherlands. With the infringement of the Dutch legal interest, the constitutive consequence occurs in the Netherlands. The charged offence under Article 197a CC is thereby completed in the Netherlands. It does not follow from settled case law concerning the doctrine of the constitutive consequence that the defendant needed to have had intent, whether or not in conditional form, regarding the place where the constitutive consequence would occur, in this case the Netherlands. It is sufficient that the legal consequence (unlawful entry into the Netherlands) occurs in the Netherlands and that, according to the doctrine of reasonable attribution, this legal consequence can be attributed to the defendant.



With the exception of witness [number 4], the migrants included in the indictment travelled on to the Netherlands after the crossing from Libya to Italy. 5
The witness [witness 4], with witness number [number 4], stated that, after arriving in Italy, she travelled on to France, after which she ultimately arrived in England via Belgium and Luxembourg. 6 At no point after arriving in Italy did she travel on to and arrive in the Netherlands. The District Court therefore considers that no constitutive consequence of the people smuggling of [witness 4] charged under count 5 and bearing witness number [number 4] occurred in the Netherlands. In addition, no act forming part of the charge or effect of the instrument took place in the Netherlands either. The District Court is therefore of the opinion that, to that extent, the Netherlands cannot be regarded as the locus delicti and that there is no jurisdiction for the Dutch court pursuant to Article 2 CC in respect of this migrant and this part of the people smuggling charged under count 5.



The witness [witness 3], with witness number [number 3], stated that, after the attempted boat crossing from Libya had failed, he was eventually, after a period of detention in Libya, collected from Libya by air with the assistance of UNHCR (the United Nations refugee agency) and the Red Cross, after which he went to Niger. He then stayed in Niger for one and a half years and flew from Niger to Romania. From Romania, he finally travelled on to the Netherlands. 7 The witness says that he was assisted by UNHCR with the journey by air to Europe. 8 The District Court considers that the possible people smuggling within the meaning of Article 197a CC of this witness (with the failed crossing) ended in Libya. The ultimate arrival in the Netherlands of this migrant, referred to as [witness 3] in the offence charged under count 5, is too remote and is therefore not a constitutive consequence of the defendant’s assistance in people smuggling within the meaning of Article 197a CC, or at least, due to the insufficient sine qua non connection, cannot reasonably be attributed to him. The District Court is therefore of the opinion that the Netherlands cannot be regarded as the locus delicti and that there is no jurisdiction for the Dutch court pursuant to Article 2 CC in respect of this migrant and this part of the people smuggling charged under count 5.



With regard to the other migrants9 included in the indictment under the people smuggling counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, the District Court is of the opinion that the arrival of these persons in the Netherlands may be regarded as a consequence of the defendant’s criminal conduct within the meaning of Article 197a CC that can reasonably be attributed to him, if and insofar as proven.
All these migrants travelled on to the Netherlands within the foreseeable future after their arrival in Italy, partly thanks to the open borders within the European Union, where they then applied for asylum. The District Court has generally been able to establish the migrants’ entry on the basis of their statements and/or other case-file data. In order to verify those statements, the District Court used Personal Records Database (BRP) data to establish that the migrants had actually entered the Netherlands.



In the Netherlands, the legal interest protected by Article 197a CC was thereby infringed. With the infringement of the Dutch legal interest, the constitutive consequence occurs in the Netherlands. In the opinion of the District Court, this means that, in respect of all the migrants named in the indictment, with the exception of ‘[witness 4]’ (witness number [number 4]) and ‘[witness 3]’ (witness number [number 3]) in count 5, the Netherlands can also be regarded as the locus delicti and that the Dutch court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 CC in respect of the people smuggling counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, at least as regards the element assisted in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1).



This does not apply to the element for gain, assisted in obtaining residence (paragraph 2) of the people smuggling counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. By its nature, this provision concerns providing residence in the Netherlands for gain. Neither the hearing in court nor the case file has revealed any connecting factors indicating that the defendant in any way assisted, for gain, in providing residence to the migrants in the Netherlands. Nor, therefore, did any constitutive consequence occur in the Netherlands for this element of the indictment. The District Court is therefore of the opinion that the Netherlands cannot be regarded as the locus delicti in respect of this element of the indictment and that, to that extent, there is no jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 CC. To that extent, the Public Prosecution Service will be declared inadmissible in the prosecution.



The District Court considers the following with regard to the extortions charged under counts 4 and 6.
The witness [witness 5], with witness number [number 5], stated before the examining magistrate that he was forced by violence, by [defendant]’s accomplices in the camp in [place 2] (Libya), to call relatives in order to persuade them to transfer money for his crossing. He no longer knew which relatives he had called from the camp. He gave four or five telephone numbers of relatives to the accomplices. Once in the Netherlands, he heard that he had called his sister [witness 6], with witness number [number 6].10 This witness stated that she was called by her brother [witness 5] from a camp in Libya, that he was being assaulted during the telephone conversations and that her brother told her that she had to pay money quickly for the sea journey. She told her parents the content of this conversation because she herself could not pay the amount. Payment had to be made twice. Her parents ultimately paid for her brother’s journey. The witness [witness 6] was living in the Netherlands at the time of the telephone conversations.11



The witness [witness 7], with witness number [number 7], stated that he was forced by violence, in the camp in [place 1] (Libya), to call relatives in order to persuade them to transfer money for the crossing to Italy. He only called his brother [witness 3], with witness number [number 17].12 This witness stated that he had telephone contact with his brother [witness 7] when his brother was in a camp in Libya. His brother said that he was being assaulted while he was speaking to him on the telephone. His brother said that he had been abducted and that



USD 5,000.00 had to be paid. Witness [witness 3] then approached two uncles in Israel and begged them to pay the amount. One of the uncles then collected money from fellow villagers and the amount for the crossing was paid with that money. The witness [witness 3] was living in the Netherlands at the time of the telephone conversations.13



With regard to both offences, the District Court considers that it follows from the case file that the witnesses [witness 5], with witness number [number 5], and [witness 7], with witness number [number 7], were forced by violence in a camp in [place 1] to call relatives in order to persuade them to have money paid for the crossing to Italy. In both cases, a family member living in the Netherlands was called while the witnesses located in Libya were being assaulted, with the intention of inducing the person in the Netherlands to surrender an amount of money, whether directly or indirectly. Those family members living in the Netherlands then approached other family members, after which the amount of money was paid. The District Court is of the opinion that this establishes an evident causal link between the extortion of the family members located in the Netherlands and the amount of money to be paid by them, or by third parties through their intervention. The question who ultimately paid the amount of money for the crossing is not decisive. Contacting the family members in the Netherlands in this way was, in both offences, an essential part of the extortion within the meaning of Article 317 CC, meaning that the offences also took place partly in the Netherlands. This means that the Netherlands may also be regarded, in respect of counts 4 and 6, as a locus delicti and that the Dutch court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 CC.



The District Court considers the following with regard to the participation in a criminal organisation charged under count 1.
The District Court has already established the jurisdiction of the Dutch court pursuant to Article 2 CC in respect of the charged people smuggling offences and extortions. In view of this, the District Court is of the opinion that it thereby also has jurisdiction in respect of the charged participation in a criminal organisation, or at least insofar as that organisation had the purpose of committing the offences of people smuggling (first indent) and extortion (third indent).



Insofar as, according to the indictment, the criminal organisation had the purpose of committing the offences of hostage-taking (second indent), violent offences (fourth indent) and sexual offences (fifth indent), the District Court rules differently. Insofar as the existence of the purpose of committing these offences can be established, these elements of the indictment took place outside the Netherlands. Nor did any constitutive consequence of those offences occur in the Netherlands. The District Court is therefore of the opinion that, to that extent, the Netherlands cannot be regarded as the locus delicti, so that in that regard there is no jurisdiction for the Dutch court pursuant to Article 2 CC.



- Articles 3 to 8d inclusive CC: extraterritorial jurisdiction
With regard to the elements of the charged offences in respect of which it has been held that the Dutch court has no jurisdiction pursuant to the territoriality principle of Article 2 CC, the District Court has also examined whether jurisdiction might perhaps be assumed on some other basis referred to in Articles 3 to 8d inclusive CC.



The District Court has reached the conclusion that this is not the case. Article 3 CC, which concerns criminal offences committed on Dutch vessels and aircraft, is not applicable to this case at all. The same applies to Articles 5 to 8b inclusive CC and Article 8d CC. Those articles also concern situations that are not at issue.



In the opinion of the District Court, contrary to what the Public Prosecution Service has argued, the current provision of Article 4 CC leaves no room to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction



in respect of the smuggling of the witnesses [number 3] and [number 4], included in the offence charged under count 5. After all, Article 197a of the Criminal Code is not mentioned in Article 4 CC. The fact that a bill 14 is pending which seeks to change this does not lead to a different conclusion, precisely because this bill has not yet been enacted.



The Public Prosecution Service also took the position that jurisdiction, insofar as it cannot be based on the territoriality principle of Article 2 CC, can be based on the provisions of Article 8c CC. The District Court cannot follow the Public Prosecution Service in this.
As appears from the explanatory memorandum, by introducing Article 8c CC the legislature intended that jurisdiction could be established in respect of foreign nationals residing in the Netherlands for serious offences they committed abroad, if their extradition is not possible. The basis for exercising jurisdiction is thereby linked not so much to the connection with the Dutch legal order, but rather to the fact that it must be prevented that those suspected of serious offences can reside in the Netherlands unhindered and unpunished because there are no possibilities to remove or extradite them.15 In the present situation, however, the defendant was extradited by the Ethiopian authorities at the request of the Dutch Public Prosecution Service in order to be tried in the Netherlands. The defendant therefore was not, and is not, residing in the Netherlands unhindered, so Article 8c CC does not provide an additional basis for jurisdiction in this case.




3.3.3.


Ne bis in idem principle in respect of the people smuggling counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10

After deliberation in chambers at the hearing of 3 November 2025, the District Court gave the following decision on this preliminary objection.



The District Court considers that the ne bis in idem principle, as laid down, among other places, in Article 68 CC, means that a person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence. When assessing whether the same offence is involved, the court must, in the situation to which Article 68 CC relates, compare the allegations described in both indictments. According to the Supreme Court, in that assessment the legal nature of the offences and the defendant’s conduct must be taken into account as relevant comparison factors. It already follows from the wording of the concept ‘same offence’ that the answer to the question of what must be understood by that concept is also determined by the circumstances of the case. The rule of thumb is that a significant difference in the legal nature of the offences and/or in the conduct may lead to the conclusion that the same offence within the meaning of Article 68 CC is not involved.16



The District Court takes the Ethiopian judgment as the starting point for assessing whether there has been a breach of the ne bis in idem principle. On 14 June 2021, by judgment of the Federal First Instance Court of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa, the defendant was convicted of people smuggling in ‘[place 2]’ (Libya) in relation to a number of persons named [name 1], [name 2], [name 3], [name 4] and [name 5], committed in a period overlapping with the period charged in the present case.



The District Court is of the opinion that the present case concerns offences other than those for which the defendant was convicted under the aforementioned Ethiopian judgment. To that end, the District Court considers that, both in the present case and in the Ethiopian judgment, the charges were brought individually in each case per person. The Ethiopian conviction relates to comparable offences, but committed against persons other than those in the present case. There is therefore no same offence as referred to in Article 68 CC and the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court. The defence argued that European legislation and case law mean that the ne bis in idem rule applies in similar cases in approximately the same period, regardless of the persons against whom the charged criminal offences were committed. The District Court does not follow the defence in this, applies the legal frameworks formulated by the Supreme Court and rejects the preliminary objection to that extent.



In what was submitted and repeated by the defence in oral argument, the District Court sees no reason, now in its final judgment, to rule differently from its ruling on 3 November 2025, and it upholds its decision.




3.3.4.


Breach of the speciality principle with regard to count 11, money laundering

After deliberation in chambers at the hearing of 3 November 2025, the District Court gave the following decision on the preliminary objection.



Pursuant to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC, New York, 15 November 2000), also known as the Palermo Convention, persons may be extradited between countries for a number of transnational offences included in that convention. The Netherlands acceded to this convention on 12 December 2000 and ratified the convention on 26 May 2004. Ethiopia acceded to this convention on 14 December 2000 and ratified the convention on 23 July 2007. On 20 January 2022, by means of an extradition request to the Ethiopian authorities, the Public Prosecution Service requested the extradition of the defendant on suspicion of a number of criminal offences specified by the Public Prosecution Service, including people smuggling, extortion and participation in a criminal organisation. Following this extradition request, the defendant was extradited to the Netherlands by the Ethiopian authorities on 5 October 2022.



The District Court considers that the speciality principle as referred to, among other places, in Article 16 of the aforementioned convention means that the requesting state, subject to exceptions which have not been shown to apply in the present case, may not proceed against the requested person in respect of any offence other than the offence for which extradition was requested and obtained. It follows from the documents in the case file relating to the defendant’s extradition that extradition by the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia was not requested or obtained in respect of the offence charged under count 11, namely money laundering. In addition, no additional consent was requested or granted for any action by the Public Prosecution Service with regard to money laundering or other financial offences.



In view of the foregoing, the District Court declares the Public Prosecution Service inadmissible in the prosecution in respect of count 11 (money laundering) and the related parts of count 1 (participation in a criminal organisation), insofar as this concerns the sixth (money laundering) and seventh (hawala banking) indents.



The District Court sees no reason in this final judgment to rule differently and upholds its decision set out above.




3.3.5.


Conclusions

The District Court declares the summons null and void in respect of the element (in any event) and

and/or at least one or more (other) persons whose identity has remained unknown in counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and
10.



The District Court rules that the summons is valid in all other respects.



The District Court declares the Public Prosecution Service inadmissible in the prosecution in respect of the offences charged under counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, owing to the absence of jurisdiction, as regards the element for gain, assisted in obtaining residence in (paragraph 2).



The District Court declares the Public Prosecution Service inadmissible in the prosecution in respect of the offence charged under count 5, owing to the absence of jurisdiction, in respect of the people smuggling of the migrants included in the indictment, [witness 4], with



witness number [number 4], and [witness 3], with witness number [number 3] .



The District Court declares the Public Prosecution Service inadmissible in the prosecution in respect of the offence charged under count 1, owing to the absence of jurisdiction, as regards the purpose relating to the elements:
- hostage-taking, as referred to in Article 282 and/or 282a of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely unlawfully depriving one or more persons of their liberty and/or keeping them deprived of their liberty, whether or not with the purpose of forcing the family of that/those person/persons to pay for the crossing to Europe, and/or

(..)

- violent offences, as referred to in Article 285 and/or Article 300 and/or Article 302 and/or Article 287 of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely threatening with deadly and/or other violence and/or assault(s), whether or not resulting in serious bodily injury and/or death, and/or manslaughter, committed against the aforementioned person/persons, and/or
- sexual violent offences, as referred to in Article 242 and/or 246 of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely rape and/or indecent assault of one or more migrants, and/or.



The District Court declares the Public Prosecution Service inadmissible in the prosecution, owing to breach of the speciality principle, in respect of count 11 (money laundering) and the related parts of count 1 (participation in a criminal organisation), insofar as this concerns the elements:
- money laundering, as referred to in Articles 420bis and 420ter of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely collecting large amounts of money in cash from family members in the Netherlands and transferring, moving, converting, acquiring, possessing, concealing and disguising those proceeds and thereby securing them, and/or
- hawala (underground) banking by carrying on the business of a payment service provider without a licence as referred to in Article 2:3a of the Dutch Financial Supervision Act, while he, the defendant, is/was/has been the leader and/or founder and/or director of the aforementioned organisation;.



The District Court is of the opinion that the Dutch court has jurisdiction in respect of all other charged offences and elements thereof not mentioned above and that the Public Prosecution Service is admissible in the prosecution to that extent. The District Court also considers itself competent to hear this case to that extent, and rules that there are no reasons to stay the prosecution.



The District Court will hereinafter assess the facts on the basis of the indictment attached to this judgment as Appendix II, in which the amendments resulting from the decisions on the preliminary questions have been incorporated.










4The identity of the defendant



4.1

The position of the Public Prosecution Service



The Public Prosecution Service has taken the position that the defendant is the person referred to by witnesses as [defendant] and who was active as a people smuggler under that name, mainly in [place 1] (Libya).




4.2

The position of the defence



The defendant denies that he is the person the Public Prosecution Service believes him to be.



The defence points out that he has consistently stated that he has never been in Libya or [place 1]. The judgment in Ethiopia is based on incorrect grounds and there has been a case of mistaken identity. In addition, the defence has taken the position that the witnesses were influenced with regard to the identification of the defendant because photographs of the defendant were circulating on the internet. It appears from witness statements that, at an earlier stage, they saw photographs or videos of the defendant on social media, in which the name [defendant] was sometimes mentioned, including following his arrest. This increases the risk of the so-called transfer effect; witnesses believe they recognise the defendant during the identification, but do not realise that this recognition is based on information that reached them at a later point, for example via social media. The probative value is also limited because these are mainly single-photo identifications. The recognitions by the various witnesses therefore cannot constitute compelling evidence that the defendant is the people smuggler [defendant] whom the Public Prosecution Service has in mind.




4.3

The judgment of the District Court



The case file contains many witness statements in which the defendant was recognised by witnesses as the person who was involved in people smuggling from Libya to Europe and was called [defendant]. During these witness interviews, in particular the following three photographs were shown in a photo folder, which was updated and amended during the course of the investigation. The first photograph is a photograph of a man wearing cartridge belts, with a firearm over his shoulders and a telephone in his hand. The second photograph is a photograph of the defendant taken at a police station in Ethiopia after his arrest in March 2020, and the third photograph is of a man in a white jumper, with a laptop on his lap and ‘earpiece/headphones’ visible in his left ear. In the photo folders shown to the various witnesses, one of the aforementioned photographs was included in each case. The defendant recognised himself in all three photographs. There are three witnesses who recognised the defendant from the first photograph, eight witnesses who recognised the defendant from the second photograph and three witnesses who recognised the defendant from the third photograph.17



With regard to the defence’s position that the witnesses were allegedly influenced because photographs of the defendant had circulated on the internet at an earlier stage and that the witnesses therefore identified him as the people smuggler responsible, known by the name [defendant], the District Court considers that only one of the photographs shown to the witnesses circulated on the internet, namely the photograph referred to above as the first photograph (man with the cartridge belts).
Moreover, before the photographs were shown, the witnesses specifically described distinctive external features of [defendant], the man whom the witnesses saw, among other places, in the camp in [place 1], which correspond to the description of the defendant, including his height, build, hairstyle and presumed age. In addition, the various witness statements support each other on these points. In view of this, the District Court is of the opinion that the witnesses were not, or at least were not influenced to such an extent by the photograph of the defendant circulating on the internet (with the cartridge belts) that all recognitions from photographs would be unusable as evidence.



The District Court further considers it important in this respect that intercepted telephone conversations conducted by the defendant from Grave Penitentiary Institution with third parties show that the defendant attempted to have witnesses influenced by having them state that they do not know him and that talking about the past is of no use.18 In the opinion of the District Court, these conversations strengthen the credibility of the witness statements concerning the recognition of the defendant as [defendant] .



The District Court further considers that, at the time of his arrest in Ethiopia, the defendant had an Eritrean passport with him in the name of [defendant], born on [date of birth 1] 1983 in [place of birth]. This passport contains a visa for entry into Libya, valid from 27 September 2017 to 26 September 2018 inclusive, and a stamp showing payment of fees for residence in Libya.19 During an interview with the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee, the defendant stated that it was someone else’s passport,



on which a passport photograph of himself supplied by him had been placed. He further stated that he bought this passport in Khartoum (Sudan) and that at the time he received the passport there were no stamps or visa for Libya in it. The defendant stated that he travelled with the passport to Dubai and then to Ethiopia, but that he had never been in Libya.20 However, the defendant gave no explanation for the Libyan visa and the stamp showing payment of fees for residence in Libya in that passport.



Furthermore, on 25 November 2018, the user of the Facebook account [account name 1] received a photograph of the aforementioned passport in the name of [defendant], born on [date of birth 1] 1983 in [place of birth], with the defendant’s photograph on it. He received this photograph of the aforementioned passport from the user of the Facebook account [account name 2]. Shortly before this, the user of the Facebook account [account name 2] sent a message to the user of the Facebook account [account name 3] in Tigrinya, the translation of which reads: ‘Take a photo of [defendant]’s passport and send it to me’. Furthermore, the user of the Facebook account [account name 1] received instructions in Tigrinya from the user of the Facebook account [account name 2] about the flight from Sudan to Dubai using this passport.21
It appears from messages sent from the Facebook account [account name 1] that the user of this account used the name [defendant] and stayed in [place 1]. For example, on 27 November 2018 the user of the Facebook account [account name 1] received the following messages in Tigrinya from the user of the Facebook account [account name 2], the translation of which reads: ‘No problem my brother [defendant], the important thing is trust’ and ‘What has really made me happy in my life is that you are safe; I was afraid you would die in [place 2]. But God has freed you so that you could leave Libya’.22 Furthermore, on 11 March 2018 the user of the Facebook account [account name 1] sent a message in Tigrinya, the translation of which reads: My name is [defendant] ’.23
The user of the account [account name 4] was also called [defendant] in many messages and comments in response to videos posted on his account.24 It appears from the case file that the Facebook accounts [account name 1] and [account name 4] were used by the same user.25



In view of the foregoing, in combination with the passport found on the defendant in the name of [defendant], the District Court is of the opinion that the defendant was the user of the Facebook accounts [account name 1] and [account name 4]. In the period from 1 January 2018 to 8 April 2018 inclusive, the Facebook account [account name 4] used IP addresses that were located in places in the town of [place 1] in Libya.26



It also appears from the aforementioned intercepted telephone conversations of the defendant in Grave Penitentiary Institution that in those conversations with third parties the defendant said that, during his interviews in the Netherlands, he had stated that his name was [name 6]. It also appears from these conversations that, in return for payment, he tried to have several identity documents made in the name of [name 6], including a driving licence, a baptismal certificate, proof of residence in the Shegerab refugee camp in Sudan, a refugee document from Ethiopia, proof of payment to a bank and/or church and/or proof of application for an identity card.27 In this regard, the District Court considers it important that during these conversations the defendant did not ask for these documents to be requested from official bodies or otherwise to be brought to light, but for these documents to be drawn up (falsely, as the District Court understands it). The defendant also gives instructions about which personal and other details must be stated on the documents, so that the documents support what he stated during his interviews. Furthermore, during these conversations he said that, during the interviews, he had stated that he had not been anywhere and that he had convinced the people here with this story. The defendant also says that nothing should be posted on his Facebook accounts because they are being combed through.28



The District Court infers from these intercepted telephone conversations that the defendant tried to obtain false papers for an identity that he had invented in order to conceal his true identity and/or the identity of [defendant] used during the period charged, and/or to conceal the



places where he actually stayed during the period charged.



In view of the foregoing, the District Court is of the opinion that it has been lawfully and convincingly proven that the defendant is the person recognised by the witnesses as being the person who was called [defendant] and who stayed in [place 1] in Libya during the period charged.








5The reasoning on the evidence



5.1

The position of the public prosecutor



The public prosecutor has taken the position that the charged offences can be lawfully and convincingly proven as follows:

- count 1: participation in a criminal organisation with the purpose of committing the offences of
people smuggling, hostage-taking, extortion, violent offences and sexual offences, while the defendant was the leader of this organisation;
- counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10: people smuggling in association with others, of the
persons named in the indictment, with the injuries caused as stated in the indictment, with the exception of the elements and/or resulted in serious bodily injury and the paralysis of the right hand as injury to [witness 2] as charged under count 2, while a danger to life was to be feared and the defendant made this an occupation and/or habit;
- counts 4 and 6: extortion in association with others.


5.2

The position of the defence



If the District Court finds that the Dutch court has jurisdiction, the defence has taken the following position, stated in abbreviated form, regarding the provability of the charged offences:

- count 1: primarily, the defendant should be acquitted because it cannot be established that

there was (i) a lasting and structured organisation as referred to in Article 140 CC and
(ii) a collaborative association with the purpose of committing the charged offences and (iii) that the defendant participated in such an organisation. In the alternative, the defendant should be acquitted of the offences that are alleged to have taken place exclusively in Libya, in any event hostage-taking, violent offences and sexual offences;

- counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10: primarily, the defendant should be acquitted because of the absence
of sufficient lawful and convincing evidence. In the alternative, the defendant should in any event be acquitted of the migrants smuggled under counts 9 and 10, who expressly stated that someone other than the defendant was their smuggler, so that there is insufficient lawful and convincing evidence in respect of the defendant that he made a criminal contribution to these smuggling offences;
- counts 4 and 6: the defendant should be acquitted because of the absence of sufficient lawful
and convincing evidence.


5.3

Introductory considerations



Under the direction of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office in Zwolle, a criminal investigation was launched on 7 November 2017 under the name ‘27Pearce’. This investigation, which initially focused mainly on a suspect with the name ‘[co-defendant 1]’, was carried out by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee.29 This investigation focused on a criminal organisation led by this [co-defendant 1] which was allegedly involved in smuggling migrants from Africa to Europe via the Central Mediterranean Route. From North Africa, the migrants embarked on a long and often dangerous journey in an attempt to reach Europe irregularly via the Mediterranean Sea. Many migrants pass through Libya on their way to Europe, which has fostered the development of people smuggling and human-trafficking networks in Libya.30



On 5 September 2018, a report31 was issued by the Panel of Experts on Libya, addressed to the President of the United Nations Security Council. Among other things, this report refers to a network of people smugglers active between Eritrea and Libya, with a hub in the Libyan town of [place 1]. A man named [defendant] was also said to be part of this network. The Panel interviewed Ethiopian girls who, between October 2014 and January 2017, were smuggled to Europe by this [defendant] in return for payment for a so-called ‘package journey’. These girls stayed on a farm along [location 2] on the outskirts of [place 1]. In the sheds on the farm site, up to 1,200 migrants from countries including Eritrea and Somalia were staying. 32 In the 27Pearce investigation, two camps in or near [place 1] were identified where female, male and underage migrants were allegedly held in sheds by the aforementioned smuggling network. These are the camps designated [location 2] and [location 3].33 In addition, two other comparable camps elsewhere in Libya were also identified which the aforementioned smuggling network was allegedly using. These are the camps [location 4] and [location
5] .34



On 6 January 2020, it was decided that the criminal investigation would also focus on the person called [defendant]. 35



In the 27Pearce investigation, several case files were drawn up following the arrivals of migrants in Italy on different dates. These migrants were rescued on the Mediterranean Sea and taken to Italian ports. A number of these migrants ultimately ended up in the Netherlands and were interviewed as witnesses about the circumstances in which they stayed in the camps in, among other places, [place 1] and the sea journey they made.36



The results of this investigation are set out in the 27Pearce investigation file. The indictment is based on this investigation file. On that basis, the Public Prosecution Service concluded that the defendant committed all the offences in close cooperation with, in any event, the co-defendant [co-defendant 1] (hereinafter also: [co-defendant 1]). That view is reflected in the offences charged under counts 2 to 10 inclusive. For that reason, the District Court will first devote a number of considerations in respect of these offences to this premise of the Public Prosecution Service. Section 5.4.3.3 will specifically address the question whether [co-defendant 1] was a co-participant in the criminal collaborative association as charged under count 1.




5.4

Considerations of the District Court



5.4.1.

Co-perpetration with [co-defendant 1]



5.4.1.1. The position of the Public Prosecution Service
The Public Prosecution Service has taken the position that, in all the people smuggling offences, there was close and conscious cooperation between the defendant and, among others, [co-defendant 1]. In this regard, the Public Prosecution Service refers in particular to the various witness statements, the actual course of events in the camps as reflected in those statements, the way in which the defendant and [co-defendant 1] dealt with each other locally and the messages from the Facebook accounts which, according to the Public Prosecution Service, were used by [co-defendant 1] ([account name 2]) and the defendant ([account name 1] and [account name 4]).



5.4.1.2. The position of the defence
The defence has taken the position that there was no close and conscious cooperation between, on the one hand, the defendant and, on the other hand, [co-defendant 1]. The defence therefore requests that the defendant be acquitted of count 9 in respect of the migrants referred to in the indictment as [witness 8], [witness 9], [witness 2], [witness 1] and [witness 10], and of all migrants named in count 10, because these migrants stated that not the defendant, but [co-defendant 1] or a smuggler named



[co-defendant 11], was their smuggler.



5.4.1.3. The judgment of the District Court
As noted, against the background of the case file and the position of the Public Prosecution Service concerning co-perpetration, the District Court considers it important first to establish whether there was co-perpetration by the defendant and [co-defendant 1] in the charged people smuggling offences, particularly with a view to the provability of counts 9 and 10.



With regard to the charged co-perpetration, the District Court considers as follows. Involvement in a criminal offence may be declared proven as co-perpetration when it has been established that, in the commission of that offence, there was sufficiently close and conscious cooperation between the co-perpetrators in committing the charged offence. Even where the charged co-perpetration does not, in essence, consist of joint execution during the commission of the criminal offence, there may be the close and conscious cooperation required for co-perpetration. The defendant’s material and/or intellectual contribution to the criminal offence must then be of sufficient weight. In assessing whether this requirement has been met, account may be taken of, among other things, the intensity of the cooperation, the division of tasks between them, the role in the preparation, execution or settlement of the offence and the importance of the defendant’s role, his presence at important moments and his failure to withdraw at an appropriate time. The contribution of the co-perpetrator will usually be made during the commission of the criminal offence in the form of joint execution of the offence. In addition, the contribution may also have been made in the form of various acts before and/or during and/or after the criminal offence. Particularly in such situations, which are in a certain sense different or special, attention must be paid in the reasoning on the evidence to the question whether the cooperation in the criminal offence was indeed so conscious and close that it can be described as co-perpetration, in particular that and why the defendant’s contribution was of sufficient weight.37
The District Court considers that the case file, including the witness statements and the investigation into the Facebook accounts of the defendant and [co-defendant 1], contains indications that the defendant and [co-defendant 1] were in contact with each other. The Public Prosecution Service has put forward that it follows from the case file that the defendant and [co-defendant 1] had a shared shed on the same plot and that they were seen interacting amicably with each other on that plot. Furthermore, several witnesses state that, on arrival at the plot in [place 1], they were accommodated in a shed divided in half, with one part used by [co-defendant 1] and the other part by the defendant. The two halves were separated from each other by a stone wall. The migrants ‘belonged’ either to [defendant] or to [co-defendant 1].
It also appears to follow from the witness statements that, on some boats, there were migrants both from the defendant’s half of the shed and from [co-defendant 1]’s half of the shed. In addition, the Facebook contacts between the defendant and the user of the account [account name 2], whom the Public Prosecution Service says was [co-defendant 1], appear to show that the defendant and [co-defendant 1] had ‘business’ contacts. The Public Prosecution Service also regards the contact concerning the false passport in the defendant’s name and bearing his photograph, which he had with him at the time of his arrest, as an indication of their cooperation.



The District Court is of the opinion that, although the aforementioned circumstances appear to show that there was contact and possibly some form of cooperation between the defendant and [co-defendant 1] during the period charged, this is insufficient to find lawfully and convincingly proven that [co-defendant 1] was involved as a co-perpetrator in the smuggling of the migrants specifically named in the indictment. After all, it also appears from the witness statements that the defendant, with a group of accomplices, was in charge of his own group of migrants in a separated part of the shed. In the witness statements, the migrants make an express distinction as to who belonged to [defendant] and who belonged to another smuggler.



The District Court considers that maintaining contact with each other, making a division of the smuggled persons, accommodating groups of migrants in separated sections of the same shed, occasionally using the same boats and possibly communicating via Facebook at some point about a false passport for the defendant, are not acts that amount to a material and/or intellectual contribution of sufficient weight to qualify as co-perpetration in the smuggling of the persons specifically named in the indictment.



Conversely, this also means that, in respect of migrants who expressly state that they were smuggled by someone other than the defendant, it cannot be said that the defendant
was automatically involved as a co-perpetrator.



- Conclusion with regard to count 9
In view of the foregoing, the District Court will partially acquit the defendant of count 9, in respect of the people smuggling of the persons referred to in the indictment as [witness 8], [witness 9], [witness 2], [witness 1] and [witness 10] (numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 respectively), since these persons were not in the defendant’s section of the shed and none of them states that the defendant had involvement of sufficient weight in their smuggling journey.



- Conclusion with regard to count 10
In view of the foregoing, the District Court will also acquit the defendant of count 10, since none of the migrants named therein stayed in the defendant’s section of the shed either and none of them states that the defendant had involvement of sufficient weight in their smuggling journey.




5.4.2.

The evidence



5.4.2.1. With regard to count 2: arrival on 12 December 2017 in Augusta



In the context of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), the Italian authorities in Palermo provided the Pearce investigation team with various arrival lists of migrants who had reached Italy by boat and who were suspected of having been smuggled by the defendant. 38



One of these lists concerns the arrival list of 12 December 2017. This list states the nationalities of the four hundred and fifty-three (453) persons on board who arrived that day in the port of Augusta (Sicily). 39



It has appeared from the rescue report that on 9 and 10 December 2017 there were a total of seven different rescue operations, during which a total of 453 migrants were rescued by the vessels present off the Libyan coast, namely: [ship 1]40 ‘[ship 1]’, [ship 2], merchant vessel ‘[ship 3]’ and [ship 4]. The persons rescued at sea were then all transferred onto the vessel ‘[ship 1]’. This vessel received orders to sail to the port of Augusta, where the migrants were brought ashore on 12 December 2017 at 8:30 am. 41



In the Pearce investigation, the arrival list was analysed and examined for migrants residing in the Netherlands. This investigation resulted in the identification of three migrants, namely:
1. [witness 11], born on [date of birth 2] 1984, and her two minor children;
2. [witness 12], born on [date of birth 3] 1982;
3. [witness 2], born on [date of birth 4] 2002.42



During the interview of 5 February 2022, [witness 12] recognised the person on the photo sheet with number 18 as the defendant. 43
During the interview of 16 March 2022, [witness 2] recognised the person on the photo sheet with number 18 as the defendant. 44



The person referred to as [witness 11] in the indictment under count 2 (with witness number [number 8]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 10 September 2021. She stated that she arrived in the defendant’s camp in 2017 and that she stayed there for approximately four months. 45 She stated that, at the time of the interview, she had been in the Netherlands for four years. 46



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated, in summary, as follows. After first having been at two other locations in Libya, she arrived in a camp where she was told that she would be placed in a shed belonging to the defendant. The defendant personally received the witness and her group and immediately said that the migrants had to pay him.47 The camp was called [place 1]. 48 The camp was large. There were more than 1,500 migrants there.49 The defendant came by the shed once a day to see how things were going; he was in charge.50 The defendant gave instructions to a number of people who worked for him. The migrants had to stand in line. They had to pay a certain amount and, for that purpose, they constantly had to make telephone calls. The people who worked for the defendant then hit them on their backs with a water hose. The defendant gave the order to do this. The witness had to pay USD 5,000.00 (hereinafter referred to as: $)51 for her journey, including the journey of her children. She once fainted when she was hit with a water hose by one of the defendant’s accomplices. They were beaten every day while making telephone calls. They want you to cry or scream while you are calling, so that the family members you are calling can hear it and pay more quickly.52 The witness also saw two migrants who wanted to escape being beaten severely with a stick and dying. The defendant also gave the order to do this.53 There was no medical assistance. Many migrants were ill. It was a cramped space, as a result of which migrants slept up against each other.54 There was very little food. They received one or two meals a day, but often only one. They received a little pasta, but that was not enough. They could get water from a jerrycan with a tap, which was very dirty. There was one toilet for men and one toilet for women for a total of 1,500 migrants. Sometimes you were allowed to shower only once a week.55



Regarding the sea journey, the witness stated, in summary, as follows. Ultimately, the witness’ family paid for her. After that, she remained in the camp for approximately another two months before she was allowed to make the crossing.56 At a certain point, the witness and a number of others were told that they were allowed to leave. They got into a lorry and went to an abandoned house under construction near the coast, after which they went to another house. It took a week until they were at the coast. 57 The boat was already ready at the coast. This was a small wooden boat. The witness boarded the boat with her children. There were approximately 45 migrants on the boat; they all came from the defendant’s camp. An Arabic-speaking man steered the boat. A smaller boat sailed behind their boat, which their driver boarded after three hours, leaving them in the middle of the sea. The following day, they were rescued by an Italian ship.58 The witness feared for her own life and for the lives of her children. They were not given life jackets on the wooden boat. The witness and her children could not swim. 59



This statement corresponds to the statement the witness made before the examining magistrate on 7 March 2024.



The person referred to as [witness 12] in the indictment under count 2 (with witness number [number 9]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 2 October 2021 and 5 February 2022. He stated that he arrived in the defendant’s camp in May 2017



and that he stayed there for approximately seven months.60 He stated that, at the time of the interviews, he had already been in the Netherlands for a long time and that he would have preferred to have been interviewed three years earlier. 61 He applied for asylum in the Netherlands in March 2018. 62



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated as follows. He arrived in the defendant’s camp. This camp was called [place 3]. The defendant managed a shed or warehouse and had two accomplices called [name 7] (phonetic) and [name 8] (phonetic). On arrival, the defendant introduced himself as [defendant]. The defendant was the boss. The witness first had to pay $4,000.00 to [name 7], which he did, and after that he had to pay an additional $2,000.00 to the defendant. The conditions in the warehouse were terrible. He was assaulted. Cold water was poured over him. There was another accomplice, [name 9] (phonetic), who assaulted and humiliated migrants. [name 9] worked for the defendant and kept track of who had to pay.63 When the witness had to pay for the second time, he was taken to the indoor area together with a group. The defendant’s accomplice had a stick with him. He forced the migrants to call family and beat them.
The defendant gave the order for this. This happened every morning. One of the accomplices who did this was [name 9]. If payment had been made, [name 9] arranged a code by which it was communicated that payment had been made.64 During the seven months in the camp, the witness hardly saw any sunlight. He was only given a small portion of pasta to eat twice a day. They were in a shed on the camp site with more than 1,000 people. There were no medical facilities. The witness saw pregnant women die during childbirth. There were also many migrants who were ill. The witness had open wounds on large parts of his skin, from which blood and pus were coming. He thought he was going to die. 65 It was very dirty in the camp and everyone had lice. The witness was constantly itching and scratched himself until his skin was open. 66



Regarding the sea journey, the witness stated, in summary, as follows. At a certain point, sometime after payment, the witness and a number of others were collected at night and taken towards the coast in a small car. First, they were taken to a house near the coast. He was taken to the coast with a group of 50 people, all of whom fell under the defendant. A rubber boat was ready there. All 50 people boarded that boat, including three women with children. The boat was rocking. The Libyans sailed along with another boat and eventually went back. The witness and the group were rescued by an Italian ship. They arrived in Italy on 12 December 2017. 67 The engine of the smuggling boat was defective and therefore the Libyans towed the boat in which the witness was sitting with a rope. A Libyan steered the witness’ boat. Water kept entering the boat. They were not given life jackets by the Libyans. According to the witness, the rubber boat was not seaworthy and could easily have capsized. 68



The person referred to as [witness 2] in the indictment under count 2 (with witness number [number 10]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 9 March 2022, 15 March 2022 and 16 March 2022. He stated that he stayed for six months in a camp in [place 1]. 69 He applied for asylum in the Netherlands in March 2018. 70



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated as follows. When the witness arrived in the camp, he was told that the defendant was their people smuggler or travel agent and that he had to pay him. The witness saw the defendant several times.71 The defendant had a number of guards who worked for him. They received orders from the defendant, including to beat the migrants in the shed. The migrants had to come outside group by group and were assaulted and beaten in the same way. The witness experienced this himself as well. He was first made wet with water and then beaten severely.72 He was left with scars on his legs from this.73 The migrants in the camp were assaulted because they had not yet paid the travel money. 74 The witness had to make calls every day in order to raise the amount of money. They were taken outside, had to stand in rows and wait until it was their turn to call. If a person had paid, he was allowed to stay inside. He saw



migrants being beaten while they were calling. 75 $2,500.00 had to be paid for the witness. 76 The persons who had paid were separated from the rest and received two meals a day, while the others received only one meal a day.77 The migrants usually received just one plate of pasta once a day in a group of eight or ten people, often without sauce. This was not sufficient.78 There were insufficient sanitary facilities. You were allowed to shower only once a week. There was one water tap and one bucket in the shower room, where they had to shower and wash clothes with seven or eight people at the same time. There were approximately 1,300 migrants in the shed and there were only three toilets for the men and boys.79 The witness became very ill and underwent surgery after arriving in Italy. He also contracted tuberculosis and had to be treated for this for two months.80 He weighed 30 kilograms on arrival in Italy, while he was 1.[number 18] metres tall. 81



Regarding the sea journey, the witness stated as follows. The witness was suddenly allowed to leave. A group was ready to depart. The sick people in the camp who had paid were allowed to go with that group, including the witness.82 He was called by [name 10] (phonetic). This was an accomplice of the defendant who made the migrants make telephone calls and also performed guard duties.83 The defendant was the person who decided who was allowed to leave. 84 The witness was placed in a covered lorry with a group of 58 persons.
The defendant was present when this happened.85 The journey by lorry took approximately three days. They were taken to a house near the coast, where they stayed for approximately a week under the control of Arabs. They then had to walk to the coast. Two boats were ready there. They had to walk into the water up to their hips in order to board. They all got into one boat together with a few Arabs. A few other Arabs took their places in the other boat. The boats sailed alongside each other. After approximately eight hours of sailing, they had to stop, the Arabs disconnected the engine from the witness’ boat and the boat had to continue without an engine. The Arabs left the boat with migrants in the middle of the sea and sailed back in their own boat.86 The boat on which the witness was sitting was made of wood. There was no room for 58 people. He could normally swim, but due to his poor state of health he would not have been able to do so. They had no life jackets. There was no food or drink on board. No one could steer the boat. If anyone moved, the boat threatened to capsize. They had to be very careful. 87



The person referred to as [witness 13] (witness number [number 11]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 23 March 2022. He is the father of the witness referred to above as [witness 2] (witness number [number 10]) in the indictment under count 2. He himself had not been in the defendant’s camp. He stated that he had had to pay for his son’s crossing when his son was in Libya. 88 First, 75,000 nakfa (Eritrean currency)89 had to be paid. He was called every day by people smugglers in order to pay this. 90 He paid twice in total. The second time, between 170,000 and 180,000 nakfa91 had to be paid. He had to collect money in order to raise the amount and ultimately paid this.92



5.4.2.2. With regard to counts 3 and 4: arrival on 28 December 2017 in Augusta and extortion



Another arrival list of migrants who reached Italy by boat, which was provided to the Pearce investigation team by the Italian authorities in Palermo in the context of the JIT, concerns the arrival list of 28 December 2017. This list states the names, with accompanying photographs, of three hundred and seventy-five (375) migrants who arrived that day in the port of Augusta (Sicily). 93



It has appeared from the rescue report that on 26 December 2017 a Search and Rescue operation was carried out by the vessels named [ship 5], [ship 6] and [ship 4]. On 26 December 2017 at 9:00 am, [ship 6] provided assistance to a rubber boat carrying 121



migrants. On 26 December 2017, following a so-called ‘Thuraya call’, [ship 4] intercepted a rubber boat with approximately 134 migrants at 9:05 am. At 3:40 pm, [ship 6] provided assistance to a rubber boat carrying 120 migrants. The migrants from the various vessels were all brought onto the vessel ‘[ship 1]’. The ‘[ship 1]’ moored in the port of Porto di Augusta on 28 December 2017 at 10:30 am, after which the migrants were brought ashore. 94



The arrival list was analysed and examined for migrants residing in the Netherlands. This investigation resulted in the identification of three migrants, namely:
1. [witness 5], born on [date of birth 5] 2002;
2. [witness 13], born on [date of birth 6] 1991;
3. [witness 9], born on [date of birth 7] 1997. 95
During the interview of 24 March 2024 before the examining magistrate, the witness [witness 5] (witness number [number 5]) recognised the defendant as the person on the photo sheet with number 18.96 Prior to the interview of 29 July 2020, he also sent the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee, via WhatsApp, a photograph of a man whom the witness says is the defendant.97



During the interview of 27 July 2024, the witness [witness 6] (witness number [number 6]), [witness 5]’s sister, stated that her brother had once shown her a photograph of the defendant, in which the defendant was carrying a weapon and a large amount of ammunition in cartridge belts. On 28 July 2020, she sent reporting officer Boon a photograph showing the defendant wearing cartridge belts and carrying a weapon. 98



During the interview of 28 December 2021, the witness [witness 13] (witness number [number 12]) recognised the defendant as the person shown in a photograph under Appendix 5.99. This concerns the photograph of the defendant taken after his arrest at a police station in Ethiopia in 2020.



During the interview of 28 February 2022, the witness [witness 9] (witness number [number 13]) recognised the person on a photo sheet with number 18 as the defendant. 100



The person referred to as [witness 5] (with witness number [number 5]) in the indictment under count 3 and count 4 was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 27 July 2020 and 29 July 2020. He stated that he arrived in the defendant’s camp in 2017 and that he had been there for more than a year.101 After arriving in Italy on 1 January 2018, he travelled on with the Netherlands as his destination. He travelled from Italy to France, after which he travelled on to Belgium and then to the Netherlands. 102 It appears from the Personal Records Database (BRP) extract that he has been registered in the Netherlands at least since 26 September 2018. 103



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated as follows. During his journey from Sudan to Libya, at a certain point he was held hostage in Sudan and taken to a camp in Libya. Once in that camp, the witness was told that he had ended up with the defendant, that the defendant was the person who had taken them hostage and that the witness now fell under the defendant. He was placed in a shed. There were approximately 1,000 migrants in the shed. They all fell under the defendant. The witness stayed in the defendant’s camp for more than a year. He was always at one location. He saw the defendant approximately three times.
The defendant selected a number of persons to work in the camp and, as a reward, those people were allowed to make the crossing to Europe free of charge. The witness knows three of those accomplices by name. These are [name 9] (phonetic), [name 11] (phonetic) and [name 10] (phonetic). The accomplices assaulted the migrants in the camp on the defendant’s instructions.104 The defendant’s camp where the witness stayed was called [place 1]. The defendant’s accomplices were called kapos. The witness was beaten by these accomplices, including [name 11], [name 10] and [name 9]. The accomplices sometimes also beat people with a whip: a kind of



electrical belt or cable. They usually beat people on the back. The witness was beaten very severely in [place 1], assaulted and had cold water poured over him. He was beaten because the defendant wanted him to pay for the crossing to Europe. Upon their arrival in [place 1], the defendant said that they had to pay and that otherwise they were not allowed to leave the camp. After payment, they were allowed to travel on. The accomplices were instructed by the defendant to assault the migrants. He was beaten many times so that he would pay. On one occasion, he was beaten with full force with an electrical hose for approximately fifteen minutes when he asked for some extra food. The witness saw migrants in the camp die from starvation or during childbirth. He saw this happen eight or nine times. The defendant was the person who gave the orders for what had to happen in the shed.105 The migrants were very close together in the shed. The migrants in the shed were given very little to eat. They were given two or three spoonfuls of pasta once a day and, on Sundays, a small piece of bread with it. There was a great deal of illness in the shed. The sick migrants received no medication and insufficient treatment. There were few sanitary facilities: there were three toilets and three showers for 1,000 migrants. The sanitary facilities were not cleaned or were cleaned inadequately. 106



Regarding the extortion, the witness stated as follows. The defendant’s accomplices assaulted the migrants in the camp in order to force them to pay for the crossing to Europe. While the migrants called their families, they were beaten severely, so that the family members on the telephone could hear this and would thereby be prompted to pay.107 The witness had to pay 3,500.00 (the District Court understands: $) for the crossing. He approached family members in order to raise this money. His father approached family in Israel to collect money and paid for the crossing with it. While he was calling his family members, he was beaten and assaulted by the defendant’s accomplices. They took the telephone away from him and then told the family that they had to pay the money. A code was agreed with which it could be shown that the amount had been paid. 108



Regarding the sea journey, the witness stated as follows. After payment, he had to wait two to three months until he was taken to the coast by lorry. When the witness was taken from [place 1] to the lorry, the defendant was present in person. There were approximately sixty migrants in the lorry. The journey to the coast took approximately a week. On the way, they stopped at several houses to rest. On some days they received no food. The rubber boats had already been prepared when the witness arrived at the coast. The rubber boat was not seaworthy and could easily develop a leak. There were sixty persons on one boat, while the boat appeared suitable for approximately thirty persons. They had to sit very close together. No one received a life jacket. The witness could not swim. The Libyans took them out to a certain distance at sea, after which the Libyans returned in another boat. After this, no one was steering the boat anymore. 109 In December 2017 he began the journey and on 1 January 2018 he arrived in Sicily. He was picked up in the middle of the sea and taken to Augusta in Sicily.110



These statements correspond to the statement the witness made before the examining magistrate on 20 March 2024. Before the examining magistrate, the witness further explained that he no longer knew which family members he had called from the camp. He gave four or five telephone numbers of family members to the defendant’s accomplices. Once in the Netherlands, he heard that he had also called his sister [witness 6]. 111



The person referred to as [witness 6] in the indictment under count 4 (witness number [number 6]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 27 July 2020. She is the sister of witness [witness 5], with witness number [number 5]. The witness [witness 6] did not stay in the defendant’s camp, but was living in the Netherlands when her minor brother was staying in the camp.112



Her brother [witness 5] called the witness. He had to pay money twice to the smuggler with whom he was staying. [witness 5] was beaten severely while he was calling her. The witness heard him screaming on the telephone, after which the call was ended. He told her that he was in Libya, was being tortured and that she had to pay. The witness told her parents this. Her brother also said that he was being threatened with death and that payment had to be made as quickly as possible. If payment was made, [witness 5] would only then be allowed to travel on and cross the sea. $4,000.00 had to be transferred. The witness had insufficient means to be able to pay the amount. Her parents ultimately arranged for payment to be made. Even before her brother made an attempt to cross, the witness was called and told that payment had to be made once again. Again, her parents ensured that payment was made. Ultimately, a total of $8,000.00 or $9,000.00 was paid. After payment, her brother made the crossing.113



The person referred to as [witness 13] in the indictment under count 3 (witness number [number 12]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 23 November 2021, 7 December 2021, 8 December 2021 and 28 December 2021. He stated that he stayed in the defendant’s camp for approximately one month in 2017.114 He stated before the examining magistrate that he arrived in the Netherlands in 2018. He travelled from Italy to France by train, after which he travelled on to the Netherlands. 115



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated as follows. The camp where the witness stayed was called [place 1]. There were several smugglers on the camp site in [place 1], including the defendant. The witness fell under the defendant.116 When the witness arrived in the camp, the defendant immediately told him that he had to pay him. He had to
pay $3,600.00. The smugglers had kapos who worked for them as a kind of accomplice. These were migrants who could not pay for the crossing and therefore performed work for the smugglers. They received orders from the defendant that they had to carry out. The witness knows four accomplices by name, phonetically: [name 10], [name 12], [name 13] and [name 14]. If they wanted to enforce something, they beat the migrants. The witness saw and heard [name 10] beat migrants with a water hose on the defendant’s instructions and pour water over them before they were beaten. Everything was done in order to make them pay. The migrants who had paid were no longer beaten. The migrants were beaten mainly when they called their family members for payment of the crossing. They screamed with pain while they were on the telephone. The witness was once beaten by [name 14] when he wanted to go to the toilet. Migrants were also regularly beaten for no reason. [name 14] hit him on his eyes with a water hose, as a result of which he had a swollen eye for a while. He was also once beaten by the defendant himself. The defendant said that everyone had to sit down, but the witness had not heard this and stood up. The defendant then hit him on his back with a water hose. 117 The migrants who had not yet paid for the crossing sometimes had to stand in line for hours on end to call family members about the payment. The witness called his aunt and then payment was made. His niece in Sudan arranged this. Once payment had been completed, you received a code from your family which you had to pass on to the smugglers or kapos. He had to pass on a [witness 3] as a code.118 The migrants were given pasta to eat twice a day. They were given too little to eat and sometimes a meal was skipped. The defendant determined whether and when they were given food.119 It was very unhygienic in the camp. People sat very close together and sometimes you were allowed to shower only once every three or four days. Tuberculosis, scabies and lice were prevalent among the migrants. 120 Migrants also died in the camp after becoming very ill.121



Regarding the sea journey, the witness stated as follows. Once payment had been made, you were allowed to leave in the direction of the sea. Your name was called and a little later you were allowed to leave. The defendant communicated this together with someone else. A number of the defendant’s accomplices who had worked in the camp long enough were also allowed to leave. The witness left in a large lorry. When they boarded, the defendant said that they had to sit as far inside the lorry as possible,



so that the lorry would look empty.122 The group was first taken to a large house. From that house they were driven to a warehouse near Tripoli and then taken to the coast by car.123 The witness was taken to the coast with a group of 117 travellers in total. Once at the coast, three Libyans were ready by the sea with a rubber boat. The boat was not large. The entire group boarded one boat together with one of the Libyans. The other two Libyans were in another boat. The boat with migrants was pulled by that boat to the middle of the sea, after which they were untied. The Libyan from their boat boarded the other boat and left the boat on which the witness was located behind. The migrants on the boat had to be careful, because otherwise the boat might capsize. There was danger, because water was entering the boat. They were cold.
The migrants were afraid. The witness could not swim. They were given no life jackets or other equipment for the crossing. They drifted at sea for approximately three hours before being rescued.124 According to the witness, the defendant arranged everything and also gave instructions while they were at the coast. 125



These statements correspond to the statement this witness made before the examining magistrate on 17 May 2024.



The person referred to as [witness 9] in the indictment under count 3 (witness number [number 13]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 31 January 2022, 21 February 2022 and 28 February 2022. He stated that he stayed in the defendant’s shed for approximately seven months in 2017. 126 He stated before the examining magistrate that he arrived in the Netherlands in 2018. 127



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated as follows. During his journey, he was taken hostage at a certain point and taken to the camp [place 2]. It was a large location with a fence. He was placed in the defendant’s camp. 128 The defendant had a number of accomplices in the camp, also called kapos. The witness knows three names of accomplices, namely [name 15], [name 10] and [name 9]. They were given various tasks by the defendant. For example, [name 15] and [name 10] were given the task of assaulting migrants and [name 9] was given the task of recording the names of those who had and had not paid. 129
After staying in the defendant’s camp for two weeks, the witness was told that he had to pay $7,500.00. Each time, a group was called to the indoor area and had to call family. While they were calling, they were beaten.130 If you had paid the money, you were left in peace. As long as you had not paid, you were taken outside every day and assaulted. 131 The witness was severely beaten and kicked by the accomplices, including [name 10]. As a result, he had a lot of pain in his ribs and his ribs became misaligned. He had to call every day for five months. The witness ultimately paid $5,500.00 to the defendant through family members. After payment, a code was provided with which it could be shown that payment had been made. 132 There were more than 1,000 migrants in the defendant’s shed. There was very little space, as a result of which the witness could not sleep well. The carpet they slept on was very dirty and full of fleas. The witness contracted scabies due to the unhygienic situation. There were five toilets in total. The witness was allowed to shower once or twice a week. He suffered thirst and hunger. There was insufficient drinking water and too little food. You were given a little macaroni twice a day.133 The defendant gave the workers orders to assault the migrants and also determined that they were not allowed outside if payment was not made.134



Regarding the sea journey, the witness ‘[witness 9]’ stated as follows. After payment, one day [name 9] called out a list of names, including that of the witness. It was a group of approximately 56 migrants that had to go outside, where the defendant was waiting. The entire group had to get into one closed lorry. They were taken to a house near the coast, where they had to wait eleven or twelve days until they were allowed to leave for the coast on foot.135 Once at the coast, three Libyans were ready with a boat. It was



a wooden fishing boat. There were approximately twelve people who could swim. They had to help the migrants who could not swim onto the boat. The witness was even beaten while he was helping people. One of the Libyans steered their boat, while the other two sailed alongside it in a motorboat. After three hours of sailing, they saw a large ship in the distance. The Libyans then removed the engine from the wooden boat, anchored the wooden boat to the seabed with a rope with a brick attached to it and returned in their own boat.136 The wooden boat was not suitable for the sea journey. The boat was leaking and they were given three buckets to bail out the water along the way. The boat was too small for 56 persons. If anyone moved too much, the boat threatened to capsize. Someone also fell out of the boat, but they were able to rescue him. There were many migrants on the boat who could not swim. The sea journey was terrifying.137



These statements correspond to the statement this witness made before the examining magistrate on 23 October 2024.



5.4.2.3. With regard to counts 5 and 6: arrival on 24 April 2018 in Messina and extortion



Another arrival list of migrants who reached Italy by boat, which was provided to the Pearce investigation team by the Italian authorities in Palermo in the context of the JIT, concerns the arrival list of 24 April 2018. This list states the names, with accompanying photographs, of ninety-five (95) migrants who arrived in Messina (Italy) on that day. It has appeared from the rescue report that a rescue operation took place on the Mediterranean Sea on 21 April 2018.138



On 21 April 2018 at approximately 3:17 pm, the vessel [ship 7] 3 sailed to a location where a vessel in difficulty had been sighted. It proved to be an overcrowded vessel and no one was equipped with a life jacket. Upon seeing the NGO vessel, many persons on board called for help and the vessel was barely staying afloat. It was a blue rubber boat of approximately 10 to 12 metres. Most of the migrants stated that they had Eritrean nationality.139



In the Pearce investigation, the arrival list was analysed and examined for migrants residing in the Netherlands.140 This investigation resulted in the identification of four migrants, namely:
1. [witness 14] (witness [number 14]), born on [date of birth 8] 2000, female;
2. [witness 7] (witness [number 7]), born on [date of birth 9] 1994, male;
3. [witness 13] (witness [number 15]), born on [date of birth 10] 1994, male;
4. [witness 12] (witness [number 16]), born on [date of birth 11] 1990, male.



The first person referred to as [witness 14] in the indictment under count 5 (witness number [number 14]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 10 December 2020, 14 December 2020, 21 December
2020, 10 February 2021 and 9 July 2021, and by the examining magistrate in criminal cases on 21 March 2024. She stated that from the end of July 2017 to March 2018 she had been in one of the defendant’s sheds in [place 1].141 She stated before the examining magistrate that she arrived in the Netherlands in October 2018.142



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated, among other things, the following. The witness ended up in the defendant’s camp in a group of approximately 80 migrants. In this camp, the migrants were beaten with sticks and water hoses by the defendant and his accomplices and sprayed with water.143 The defendant’s accomplices were called [name 10], [name 16], [name 17] and [name 18].144 The migrants in the camp were constantly forced to call family members to arrange money for their journey. They were beaten and tortured so that payment would be made.145 The defendant gave his accomplices instructions to that effect.146 Ultimately, a cousin paid $3,000.00 to the defendant. After payment



had been made for the witness, she received a code. [name 18] was responsible for managing the codes.147 The witness was not only beaten by the accomplices; she was also often beaten by the defendant himself. One day she was beaten very badly by the defendant because she was not sitting close enough to her female neighbour. He hit her four times with a water hose. The hose struck her around her jaws, as a result of which she had a lot of trouble with her molars and with bleeding gums.148 The migrants in the camp were given insufficient food.149 It was very dirty there, there was not enough water, there were insufficient toilets and there was no medical care.150 The witness recognised the camp in a photograph shown to her during the interview.151



Regarding the sea journey, the witness stated, among other things, the following. She was taken to the coast by Libyans, where the rubber boat was prepared.152 After spending a month at the coast, she departed with a group of 98 persons in a rubber boat towards Italy.
This boat was suitable for [number 18] persons and was not seaworthy. Because there was a hole in the boat, water entered the boat. A fellow passenger was in charge on the boat. This fellow passenger had been given only a compass in order to know which course to sail. They did receive a life jacket, but when the witness was swimming she felt her body sinking despite the life jacket, while the jacket itself was going upwards.153 During the boat journey, they had a telephone with which they called the defendant.154



These statements made to the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee correspond to the statement the witness made before the examining magistrate on 21 March 2024.



The second person referred to as [witness 7] in the indictment under count 5 (witness number [number 7]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 29 March 2021 and 6 April 2021. He stated that from November 2017 he had stayed for approximately six months in the defendant’s camp in [place 1].155 The witness arrived in the Netherlands via Italy.156



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated, among other things, the following. He and the other refugees were beaten every day with a wooden stick or a plastic water hose by the defendant’s accomplices. They also had to roll across the ground while water was thrown over them.157 The witness stated that he was beaten very often and that excuses were looked for in order to beat people, for example if someone happened to stand up. He was also often beaten while calling family members.158 The defendant’s accomplices indicated that they did not beat people voluntarily, but had to do so on the defendant’s instructions.159 The witness and the other migrants in the camp were not given enough food and there was little water.160 Moreover, the water was of poor quality.161 The toilets were in very poor condition and there was no medical care in the shed.162 The witness’ family had to pay $5,500.00 to the defendant so that the witness could make the crossing to Italy.163



Regarding the injuries inflicted on him, the witness stated, among other things, that as a result of the assaults by the defendant’s accomplices he was left with a scar on his hands and a scar on his upper legs. He stated that the scar on his hands arose because he was beaten on his hands with a wooden stick.164



Regarding the sea journey, the witness stated, among other things, the following. After payment had been made for him, he was taken to a camp near the coast. He stayed there for approximately two months. The camp was run and guarded by Libyans and there were approximately 700 migrants in this camp. The migrants were beaten there too. At a certain point, they had to walk to the coast and board a rubber boat with 90 persons. 165 The rubber boat was steered by an African. They did have life jackets, but the witness does not know whether they were good life jackets.166 They sailed from Libya towards Italy. On 24 April 2018, they were rescued by an Italian rescue boat and taken to Italy.167



Regarding the extortion, the witness stated, among other things, the following. The migrants in the camp had to stand in line for hours to call family members so that they would pay the defendant. If they refused to call, they were beaten. The witness called his brother in the Netherlands and begged his brother to arrange the money for him. He was beaten while he was on the telephone with his brother. Sometimes the defendant’s accomplices took the telephone away and told his brother that the witness would be killed if payment was not made. Two or three months after payment had been made for him, the witness was allowed to leave for the coast.168



On 8 November 2023, [witness 7]’s brother, the witness [witness 3], assigned witness number [number 17], was interviewed by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee. This witness stated that he had telephone contact with his brother twice when his brother was in the defendant’s camp and that his brother told him that he was being assaulted.169 When the witness had his brother on the telephone, he heard many people screaming and crying in the background. The witness was in the Netherlands when he had telephone contact with his brother. His brother told him that he had been abducted and that $5,000.00 had to be paid for him. The witness contacted two uncles living in Israel and one of these uncles was able to raise the money through fellow villagers, after which payment was made.170



The third person referred to as [witness 13] in the indictment under count 5 (with witness number [number 15]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 9 March 2021, 1 April 2021, 12 April 2021 and 10 May 2021, and by the examining magistrate in criminal cases on 12 March 2024. He stated that he had stayed in the defendant’s camp in [place 1] for nine months to a year.171 He stated before the examining magistrate that he came to the Netherlands in 2018.172



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated, among other things, the following. He and the other migrants were beaten every day with a water hose by the defendant’s accomplices. They beat people on the defendant’s instructions.173 One of the accomplices who beat people was called [name 19].174 They were given insufficient food and insufficient water. For example, they received only three mouthfuls of macaroni per person per day. There were only three toilets for 1,600 migrants and there was no medical care.175 The camp was guarded by Libyan guards.176 The migrants in the camp had to call family members to arrange money. The defendant and his accomplices said that the money had to be paid through hawala banking. The witness called his brother because he had to pay the defendant $5,500.00 for the journey from Libya to Italy.
He told his brother on the telephone that he was being beaten and assaulted and asked him to transfer the money.177



Regarding the sea journey, this witness stated, among other things, the following. After the money had been paid, he was taken to the coast in a kind of lorry, where he waited for two to three months at a place with 700 persons.178 In April 2018, he boarded a rubber boat with 95 migrants, which was steered by an African man who also wanted to make the crossing to Italy. They had only been given a life jacket. After sailing for some time, the boat’s steering broke. At a certain point, they were rescued by an Italian boat.179



These statements made to the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee correspond to the statement the witness made before the examining magistrate on 12 March 2024.



The half-brother of [witness 13], with witness number [number 18], was interviewed by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 28 April 2021 and 8 May 2021. This witness stated, among other things, that [witness 13] had spent approximately six months in the defendant’s shed and that [witness 13]’s father-in-law was called from Libya by one of the defendant’s accomplices with the message that $5,500.00 had to be paid.180 [witness 13]’s father-in-law collected the money together with this witness and handed it over in Israel.181



The fourth person referred to as [witness 12] in the indictment under count 5 (with witness number [number 16]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 17 February 2021, 24 February 2021, 20 April 2021, 21 May
2021, 25 June 2021 and 15 March 2023. He stated that he stayed in the defendant’s camp in [place 1] from September 2017 to January 2018.182 The witness arrived in the Netherlands via Italy, France and Belgium.183 It appears from the Personal Records Database (BRP) extract that he has been registered in the Netherlands at least since 10 November 2020. 184



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated, among other things, the following. If migrants could not pay the travel money, they were assaulted by the defendant’s accomplices on his instructions.185 The defendant wanted the witness to pay $1,600.00 for the sea journey, but after the witness indicated that he did not have the means to do so, the defendant said that he then had to pay $1,300.00.186 The witness called his brother in Sudan and he then
paid $1,300.00 for him.187 [name 20] was an employee of the defendant who committed many offences in the shed. In the beginning, his role was to assault migrants. Later, he managed the codes and kept track of whether migrants had paid.188 An accomplice named [name 21] beat migrants in the camp with a stick.189 There were two to three toilets for 800 migrants and the toilets were always blocked. The migrants were able to shower once a week. They were not given proper food, as a result of which they had a deficiency of vitamins and protein.190



Regarding the sea journey, the witness stated, among other things, the following. At the end of December 2017 or the beginning of January 2018, he went with other migrants towards the coast. After several months, he was taken to a boat. A Libyan who was in the boat with them sailed with them until they were approximately 200 to 300 metres out to sea. He then jumped out of the boat and swam back to the coast. At a certain point, they were picked up by a German boat. They then had to throw away the life jackets they were wearing and were given other life jackets by the Germans.191



These statements made to the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee correspond to the statement this witness made before the examining magistrate on 13 March 2024.



5.4.2.4. With regard to count 7: arrival on 1 August 2015 in Lampedusa



Another arrival list of migrants who reached Italy by boat, which was provided to the Pearce investigation team by the Italian authorities in Palermo in the context of the JIT, concerns the arrival list of 1 August 2015. This list states the names, with accompanying photographs, of migrants who arrived in Lampedusa (Italy) on that day.192



In the Pearce investigation, the arrival list was analysed and examined for migrants residing in the Netherlands. This investigation resulted in the identification of five migrants, namely:
1. [witness 12] (witness [number 19]), female, born on [date of birth 12] 1992;
2. [witness 9] (witness [number 20]), male, born on [date of birth 13] 1991;
3. [witness 15] (witness [number 21]), male, born on [date of birth 14] 1989;
4. [witness 13] (witness [number 22]), male, born on [date of birth 15] 1987;
5. [witness 1] (witness [number 1]), male, born on [date of birth 16] 1987.193



Following the interview of the witness [witness 1], the witness [witness 2] was identified as a fellow traveller on this crossing. [witness 2] was subsequently added to the indictment as the sixth person, as the person referred to as:
6. [witness 2] (witness [number 2]), male, born on [date of birth 17] 1987.



During her witness interview on 15 December 2021, [witness 12] recognised the defendant as the person on the photo sheet with number 18.194



The person referred to as [witness 12] in the indictment under count 7 (witness number [number 19]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 10 November 2021, 29 November 2021, 13 December 2021 and 15 December 2021, and by the examining magistrate in criminal cases on 9 January 2025. The witness stated that she had stayed in the defendant’s camp near Tripoli for approximately two weeks.195 She stated before the examining magistrate that she came to the Netherlands at the end of August 2015.196



Regarding the stay in the camp, this witness stated, among other things, the following. In the defendant’s camp there were Eritrean and Libyan guards who beat the migrants with a wooden stick. She saw migrants being beaten three or four times. The migrants who had already been there for a long time and had not paid told her that they were beaten by the guards and by the defendant.197 The witness’ husband called his cousin in Israel, who then paid $1,800.00 per person for the sea journey of her and her husband.198 The witness did not receive enough food, there were only three or four toilets, she was allowed to shower only once during the two weeks she was in the camp and there was no medical care on the site.199



Regarding the sea journey, this witness stated, among other things, the following. After she had spent two weeks in the defendant’s camp, one of the defendant’s accomplices read out the names of the migrants who were allowed to leave for the sea. The defendant stood by and watched whether everything was going well. The group with the witness was then transported by lorry towards a location by the sea.200 After three days, during the night, they were taken to the sea with more than 100 migrants and boarded a wooden boat. An Eritrean man accompanied them to the sea, but did not go on the boat with them. After sailing for a while, the engine broke down. The ship that departed with them then left them behind. There was no food or drink on board and they had no life jackets. At a certain point, they were rescued by an Italian ship. They arrived in Italy in August 2015.201



These statements made to the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee correspond to the statement the witness made before the examining magistrate on 9 January 2025.



The person referred to as [witness 9] in the indictment under count 7 (witness number [number 20]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 26 November 2021, 3 December 2021 and 4 January 2022. He stated that he had stayed for one to two weeks, or a little more than a month, in the defendant’s camp in Tripoli.202 He stated that he arrived in Ter Apel on 9 September 2015.203



Regarding the stay in the camp and the injury inflicted on him, the witness stated, among other things, the following. In the camp, the migrants were given little food. They were given dried bread with tomato sauce, with a lot of water.204 In the shed, the witness was at a certain point struck on the back of his head by a guard from behind. After the witness said something about this, the defendant made him lie on the ground and he was beaten by the defendant with a thick stick. In addition, he received lashes from him and had to roll across the ground. The defendant struck with a great deal of force. The witness had lost a lot of blood, but received no medical treatment. He was left with a scar on the back of his head from this. He also has a scar on his calf because the edges of the stick with which the defendant struck him were very sharp. After the witness asked the defendant why he was beating him, he received another blow to the head. The defendant beat and assaulted more migrants in the shed.205 Many Eritreans were beaten and assaulted in the shed.206 Guards beat migrants with a stick.207 The defendant forced migrants to transfer money in order to be able to make the crossing. The witness had to pay $2,000.00 in order to be allowed to leave for the coast.208 The witness’ travel money



was paid by a friend in Israel, with whom the witness had left a certain amount of money. The defendant had given the witness’ friend information on how the money had to be paid. His friend paid the money to a representative of the defendant. After a few days, the witness was told that the money had been paid and he received a four-digit code, which confirmed the payment.209 The witness and the other migrants were allowed to shower only once a week in the defendant’s shed.210



Regarding the sea journey, this witness stated, among other things, the following. After he had paid the amount, he was taken to the coast. The road from the hall to the coast was very frightening and dangerous. They were transported in a covered compartment of a lorry. Because it was very stuffy there, the witness made a small hole in the tent at the top in order to breathe. He was then struck on the head by a Libyan. The witness was left with a scar from this. Other travellers were also struck. At the coast, the witness had to wait for a week. After that, they were taken in a closed car to a wooden boat. There were approximately 150 migrants on the boat. There were no safety provisions on the boat and there was no food or drink. There were many migrants on board who had never swum.211 After they had sailed for thirteen hours, their boat broke down. Two hours later, they were picked up by British people and taken to Lampedusa.212



These statements made to the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee correspond to the statement the witness made before the examining magistrate on 25 March 2024.



The person referred to as [witness 15] in the indictment under count 7 (witness number [number 21]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 4 January 2022 and 13 January 2022, and by the examining magistrate in criminal cases on 22 January 2025. The witness stated that in July 2015 he had stayed for approximately one month in the defendant’s camp near Tripoli.213 He stated that he arrived in Italy in August 2015 and then travelled on to the Netherlands. During his interview in January 2022, he had already been living in the Netherlands for six years.214



Regarding the stay in the camp, this witness stated, among other things, the following. He had to pay the defendant $2,000.00 for the sea journey. His cousin, who lives in Israel, paid this amount.215 In the shed where the witness was staying, the migrants were often beaten for no reason. The migrants were given only wet, mushy rice or lentil soup with a lot of water. Salt had been added to the drinking water. There were too few toilets and the toilets were also very dirty.216



Regarding the sea journey, this witness stated, among other things, the following. After being in the shed with the defendant for two to four weeks, he was taken by lorry towards a shed near the sea. The next day, he was taken to a wooden boat. The migrants were beaten to make them go into the boat and they were also beaten in the boat. The migrants were given no life jackets and there was no food or drink on board. There were 200 to 350 migrants on the boat and the boat was pulled by another boat. At a certain point, the boat broke down. They were rescued by an Italian ship and taken to Italy.217



These statements made to the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee correspond to the statement the witness made before the examining magistrate on 22 January 2025. In addition, the witness stated before the examining magistrate that the defendant arranged their journey after they had paid money to the defendant and that ‘the defendant’s subordinates’ took them to the coast.218



The person referred to as [witness 13] in the indictment under count 7 (witness number [number 22]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 6 January 2022 and 31 January 2022. He stated that in July 2015 he had spent five days in one of the defendant’s sheds



near Tripoli.219 The witness indicated that he arrived in the Netherlands in 2015.220



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated, among other things, the following. When he arrived on the defendant’s site, the defendant was already standing there waiting for them.221 The witness had to pay $2,200.00 for the sea journey to Europe. This money was paid in Israel by a friend of the witness.222 The witness saw that the defendant beat the migrants. He also beat migrants who, out of desperation, went outside to drink water because they were thirsty.223 Migrants then had to lie on the ground, after which the defendant threw water over those persons and then began to beat them.224 There were doctors among the refugees, but there were no medicines in the camp.225



Regarding the sea journey, the witness stated, among other things, the following. At the end of July 2015, the witness was taken to the coast. He stayed with other migrants for approximately ten days in a dilapidated factory. When it was dark, they boarded a wooden boat without an engine. The boat was pulled by another boat, but at a certain point the engine of that boat broke down. They were in the boat with 200 to 350 migrants. They were not given life jackets on board and they were given nothing to eat or drink. They had to use a machine to pump out the water that was entering the boat. The women and children in the boat could not swim. On 1 August 2015, they arrived in Lampedusa.226



These statements made to the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee correspond to the statement the witness made before the examining magistrate on 26 March 2024. In addition, the witness stated before the examining magistrate that the defendant beat the migrants with a wooden stick.227



The fifth person referred to as [witness 1] in the indictment under count 7 (witness number [number 1]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 27 January 2022 and 2 February 2022. He stated that in July 2015 he stayed for approximately 10 to 15 days in one of the defendant’s sheds in Tripoli and that he arrived in the Netherlands around 28 August 2015.228



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated, among other things, the following. When he arrived in the defendant’s hall, the defendant immediately began beating migrants.229 The defendant beat people with a wooden stick. A guard beat them with a belt.230 The conditions in the camp were poor, there was little food and drink and there were no medical facilities.231 Food was cooked, but there was not enough food for all the migrants. The migrants were only allowed to travel once money had been transferred. Until payment had been made, the defendant put pressure on them to pay.232 The witness had to pay the defendant $2,200.00 for the sea journey to Europe. The witness’ brother, who was in Israel, was told by the defendant that he had to transfer the money to someone in Sudan. After paying the money, the witness’ brother received a code, which he forwarded to him. This code served as proof that payment had been made. The defendant was responsible for checking who had and had not paid.233 The defendant was the person who determined what happened and arranged the transport.234



Regarding the sea journey, this witness stated, among other things, the following. After payment had been made, the witness went with a group of other migrants to a shed close to the coast. They stayed there for a day and a night before being taken to the sea.235 When the witness and others went to the boats to make the sea journey, he saw that there were two boats: one boat with an engine and one boat that was being towed by the boat with the engine. The Arabs decided who had to board which boat. The witness was in the boat that was being towed.236 The boats were not seaworthy.237 There were approximately 320 persons in the two boats together.238 No one was wearing a life jacket and there were only four or five jerrycans of water for the journey. The



witness could not swim well.239 After a few hours, the boat started leaking. The engine of the boat with the engine failed. An Italian ship rescued them. On 1 August 2015, the witness arrived in Italy.240



These statements made to the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee correspond to the statement this witness made before the examining magistrate on 28 March 2024. In addition, the witness stated before the examining magistrate that the defendant was present at the coast before the witness and the other migrants boarded the boats and that the defendant supervised this.241



The person referred to as [witness 2] in the indictment under count 7 (witness number [number 2]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 16 December 2024 and by the examining magistrate in criminal cases on 16 September 2025. The witness stated that in July 2015 he had stayed for four or five days in one of the defendant’s sheds in Tripoli and then for four or five days at the coast.242 It appears from the Personal Records Database (BRP) extract that he has been registered in the Netherlands at least since 24 February 2016. 243



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated, among other things, the following. When they were in the defendant’s shed, the defendant ordered that the migrants had to call family members to arrange payment for the journey.244 The witness had to pay the defendant $4,000.00 for the journey by sea. A friend of the witness in Israel gave the money to one of the defendant’s contact persons who collected money for the defendant in Israel.245 When the migrants called for money, they were always put under pressure. There were five men who did the telephone work for the defendant.246 Only if it was really necessary or if someone could not or would not pay the money did the defendant come by.247 The defendant threatened the migrants and shouted abuse at them.248 The witness was beaten a few times by the defendant with a water hose on his back. He hit so hard that the witness’ skin was open and bleeding. The defendant put a pistol to his head and said that he would shoot the witness dead.249 The migrants in the shed were given food only twice a day. Sometimes they were given pasta and sometimes sauce with bread. There was little shower space.250 The defendant was the person who ensured that the migrants were transported from country to country, that they stayed in a country where they were not allowed to be and ultimately arrived in Europe.251



Regarding the sea journey, this witness stated, among other things, the following. At a certain point, the witness boarded a boat. When it began to get light, they saw that their boat had no engine, but was being pulled by another boat. In the middle of the sea, they were rescued by the Italian coastguard.252



5.4.2.5. With regard to count 8: arrival on 4 February 2018 in Messina



Another arrival list of migrants who reached Italy by boat, which was provided to the Pearce investigation team by the Italian authorities in Palermo in the context of the JIT, concerns the arrival list of 4 February 2018. This list states the nationalities of one hundred and fifty-seven (157) migrants who arrived that day in the port of Messina (Sicily). 253



It has appeared from the rescue report that on 1 February 2018 at 11:53 am, after a sighting from the operations centre in Rome, the vessel [ship 7] 3 was informed that at coordinates 33°18.6' N - 011°53' E 13 NM (nautical miles) north of the Libyan coast and 135 NM south of Lampedusa, a boat was sailing with migrants on board. The [ship 7] 3 intercepted a blue wooden boat with approximately 157 migrants on board. The [ship 7] 3 moored in the port of Messina on 4 February 2018 at 7:30 am to disembark the migrants.254



In the Pearce investigation, the arrival list was analysed and examined for migrants residing in the Netherlands. This investigation resulted in the identification of the following persons:
1. [witness 16], born on [date of birth 18] 2002;
2. [witness 9], born on [date of birth 19] 1994;
3. [witness 17], born on [date of birth 20] 2001.255
The person referred to as [witness 16] in the indictment under count 8 (witness number [number 23]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 12 April 2021, 27 June 2021 and 13 March 2023. She stated that she arrived in the defendant’s camp in 2017 and that she stayed there for six or seven months. 256 She stated that she had been in the Netherlands since 2018.257 According to documentation in the case file, the effective date of the witness’ residence permit in the Netherlands is 19 April 2018.258



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated as follows. After travelling from Khartoum, she arrived at a large site with several sheds in Libya. This place was called [place 2].259 The witness was told by kapos that she had to pay if she wanted to travel onwards to the sea. Migrants were not allowed to leave the shed before the money had been paid.260 The migrants had to call family members to ask them to pay the amount. The witness herself had to stand in line every morning for a week in order to call. She had to pay 3,800, in euros, the witness thinks.261 The witness saw the defendant himself at the location. In the camp
she was told that he was a people smuggler. The defendant had many accomplices (kapos) working for him. The witness did not see the defendant do anything himself, but his accomplices received orders from him to carry out something. The accomplices had to beat the migrants. The witness saw and heard the defendant give the order to beat someone who did not pay.262 She knows the names of two accomplices, namely [name 9] (phonetic) and [name 19] (phonetic).263 The accomplices received all kinds of orders from the defendant, including beating the migrants and providing food. It happened very often that migrants were beaten on the defendant’s instructions.264 The witness herself was beaten by the accomplices when she was standing in line for the shower. 265 She was hit on her back with a kind of stick. 266 The shed was one large building in which there were also showers and toilets. 267 Hygiene in the camp was a major problem. The witness was given no or insufficient sanitary towels, and these were also not for sale in the camp. There was insufficient drinking water or water to wash oneself with and there was too little food. They were given a spoonful of macaroni twice a day.268 They also suffered a great deal from vermin, such as lice, in the camp. Everyone had scabies due to the lack of hygiene.
Migrants in the camp became very ill and developed infections.269 She also saw Somali migrants die because they were given too little food. 270 Pregnant women received no medical assistance during childbirth. Sometimes the baby did not survive the birth. 271 The witness herself was afraid that she would die. 272



Regarding the sea journey, the witness stated as follows. At a certain point, the witness was able to speak to her mother. [name 9] was present during this conversation. She was told that the amount had been paid and that the accomplices were aware of this. 273 At a certain point, [name 9], the defendant’s most important accomplice, told her that she was allowed to travel to the sea. 274 They departed with approximately sixty persons in one lorry. The lorry was covered and they had to be quiet. 275 They first drove to a place where they were given food and had to stay overnight. The next day they drove to the coast, where they arrived in the evening at around nine o’clock. 276 At the coast there was a rubber boat with Arabs on it. Further out in the sea there was a wooden boat, to which they were taken a few at a time. The witness could not swim and was not given a life jacket or any other means to protect herself. The migrants on the boat had no food with them. They were given no instructions about the sea journey. They sat close together and had no space.277 During the sea journey, water entered the boat through an opening at the bottom. The sea journey was very dangerous. If she had fallen into the water, she would have drowned. The next day, at around eight o’clock in the morning, they saw the large rescue boat that rescued them and brought them to the coast of



Italy.278



These statements correspond to the statement the witness made before the examining magistrate on 21 March 2024.



The identified person residing in the Netherlands referred to as [witness 9] (witness number [number 24]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 23 June 2021 and 28 June 2021. The analysis of the arrival list showed that she was on the same arrival list as the aforementioned person referred to as [witness 16], who is also included in the indictment. 279 The witness ‘[witness 9]’ stated that she had not stayed in the defendant’s shed, but had stayed in a shed belonging to another smuggler on the same camp site, in 2017 for approximately six months. 280 The witness stated that she had seen the defendant on the site during that period. The defendant was a smuggler and had his own group of migrants on the site.281 The defendant was the worst. He assaulted migrants and threw cold water over them.282 The witness stated that she left for the coast around January 2018. 283 There were also other travellers at the coast. She was told that they came, among other places, from the defendant’s camp. The boat they had to board was already in the water. It was a wooden or metal boat.284 They started the boat journey at around nine o’clock in the evening. The following morning they were rescued by the Italians.285



During the interview before the examining magistrate on 27 May 2025, this witness stated that she had seen the defendant personally once. She knew that this was the defendant because the Libyans called him and mentioned his name. He asked which smuggler she belonged to and laughed at her. The defendant had people who assaulted others for him. She heard that migrants who belonged to the defendant and did not pay on time were assaulted. They had to make telephone calls.286 The persons who stayed in the defendant’s shed were sent to the sea by the defendant. The smuggler you belonged to was also the person who sent you to the sea. 287



The identified person residing in the Netherlands referred to above as [witness 17] (witness number [number 25]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 10 May 2021 and 28 May 2021. The analysis of the arrival list showed that she was on the same arrival list as the aforementioned witness [witness 16], who is included in the indictment. 288 The witness [witness 17] stated that she had not stayed in the defendant’s shed, but had stayed in a warehouse belonging to another smuggler on the same site.
This was in 2017 for approximately eight months. 289 The site was located in the place [place 4] (phonetic).290 The witness stated that, next to the shed where she stayed, there were two other sheds, including one belonging to the defendant. 291 She heard migrants discussing that the defendant was their smuggler. 292 She stated that, after her brother had paid for her, she left for the coast together with the others who had paid. On the way, they had to spend the night in a shed twice. 293 On the way to the coast, she spoke to two girls who had been in the defendant’s camp. When the witness arrived at the coast, the migrants who had stayed in the defendant’s camp were already there. They were put together on the boat to Italy. 294 They went out to sea at around ten o’clock in the evening. Early in the morning they were rescued by the large ship. 295



5.4.2.6. With regard to count 9: arrival on 12 March 2018 in Pozzallo



Another arrival list of migrants who reached Italy by boat, which was provided to the Pearce investigation team by the Italian authorities in Palermo in the context of the JIT, concerns the arrival list of 12 March 2018. This list states the names, with accompanying photographs, of ninety-one (91) migrants who arrived in Pozzallo (Italy) on that day.296



It has appeared from the rescue report that a rescue operation took place on the Mediterranean Sea on 11 March 2018. On 11 March 2018 at 12:10 am, the vessel [ship 4] sailed to a location



where a vessel in difficulty had been sighted. It was a white rubber boat with an outboard motor, carrying 93 migrants. The migrants stated that they had departed on 10 March 2018 from the coastal area of [location 4]. For health reasons, the vessel [ship 4] transferred two of the migrants to another patrol boat near the island of Lampedusa.297



In the Pearce investigation, the arrival list was analysed and examined for migrants residing in the Netherlands. This investigation resulted in the identification of, among others, two migrants residing in the Netherlands from this arrival list, namely:
() 5. [witness 15], ([witness 13]), born on [date of birth 21] 1996; and
() 7. [witness 18], ([witness 4]), born on [date of birth 22] 2002.298



During the interview of 4 March 2021, witness [witness 15] recognised the defendant from a photo sheet with number 18.299



The person referred to as [witness 15] in the indictment under count 9 (witness number [number 26]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 21 June 2021, 13 October 2021, 8 November 2021, 3 February 2022 and 4 March 2022. He stated that from November or December 2016 he had stayed for approximately one year in the defendant’s camp in [place 1].300 After arriving in Italy, the witness travelled to the Netherlands via Belgium.301 When he arrived in Italy, he had tuberculosis.302 When the witness arrived in the Netherlands, he still had tuberculosis.303 It appears from the Personal Records Database (BRP) extract that he has been registered in the Netherlands since 10 February 2021. 304



Regarding the stay in the camp and the injuries he sustained, the witness stated, among other things, the following. The defendant was the boss in the camp. He gave orders to his accomplices, the kapos. Three of them were called [name 9], [name 10] and [name 21]. A fourth kapo was a fat man, by whom the witness was often beaten.305 The witness was told by [name 9] that he had to pay.306 After payment had been made for him, he received a code. [name 9] used this code to check whether payment had actually been made.307
[name 9] was responsible for registering the migrants who arrived at the camp and for keeping track of whether they had or had not paid. He worked for the defendant and had close contact with him. He also beat the migrants. [name 10] made the migrants stand in line and was tasked with beating the migrants. He beat them with a whip made of a kind of rubber and a water hose with a piece of metal in it. He beat them on the head, on the back or on the eyes.308 [name 21] also beat people.309 On arrival in the defendant’s camp, the migrants were beaten with a whip by the defendant’s accomplices. They were woken up every day at four o’clock in the morning and then had to stand in line to call family members in order to have money transferred as quickly as possible. While they were calling, they were beaten so that the family members heard that they were being assaulted and tortured.310 The witness initially had to pay $5,500.00, but after a year the witness’ family in Eritrea
paid $2,500.00. The witness was beaten every day because he had initially given an incorrect telephone number. After he had given his grandfather’s telephone number, the witness heard from his grandfather that his mother had fainted after the witness had spoken to his mother. Because the witness then broke the connection himself, he was punished and tied up by the defendant’s accomplices. The witness was hung upside down for 24 hours, with his hands and legs tied behind his back. Water was then poured over his body and he was beaten by the aforementioned [name 10] with a rubber truncheon. The witness was left with scars on his arms and legs from the beating and the tying up.311 He was ill from it for a week, but received no medical assistance apart from paracetamol. There was no medical care in the shed.312
At a certain point, the defendant took a woman in the camp away. She refused to go to bed with the defendant and therefore he dripped molten plastic onto her



back.313
The witness and the other migrants in the camp were given only a few mouthfuls of pasta once a day. Only once you were in the group that had paid the travel money did you receive two meals a day.314 At some times there was no water. They could shower and wash themselves only once a week.315 They were allowed to go to the toilet only twice a day.316



Regarding the sea journey, the witness stated, among other things, the following. Three to four months after the travel money had been paid by his family in Eritrea, the witness went with others towards the coast.317 After staying for a month at a location close to the coast, the witness departed towards Italy in a rubber boat. The boat had a small engine. This boat was not suitable for the sea and there was not enough space in the boat. The migrants in the boat could not swim and no one was wearing a life jacket. Water entered the boat. The driver of the boat was an Eritrean refugee. At the time they were rescued, the fuel had almost run out.318



These statements made to the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee correspond to the statement the witness made before the examining magistrate on 14 March 2024.



The person referred to as S in the indictment under count 9 (witness number [number 32]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 22 September 2021 and by the examining magistrate in criminal cases on 18 March 2024. She stated that from January 2017 she had stayed for one year in the defendant’s shed in [place 1].319 The witness went from Italy to the Netherlands. She arrived in the Netherlands in 2018.320



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated, among other things, the following. The witness was abducted by the defendant when she arrived in Libya. She was taken away by Libyans who worked for the defendant. The conditions in the shed were difficult. The witness and the other migrants in the shed were beaten and assaulted and were given too little food. They were assaulted by an Ethiopian named [name 9], an Ethiopian named [name 22] and a Somali. When migrants were being assaulted, the defendant sat watching. Migrants who could not pay were doused with cold water, had to roll across the ground and were constantly assaulted and starved. The witness was assaulted very often. There was no medical assistance in the defendant’s shed. Only if the defendant felt like it was someone transported for medical treatment. The witness had to pay 6,000 (the District Court understands: $) to the defendant.321 The money was paid by an uncle of the witness in Israel.322



Regarding the sea journey, the witness stated, among other things, the following. Four months after the money had been paid, she was taken to the coast. There she stayed in one of the defendant’s warehouses. After she had stayed there for two weeks, she, together with other migrants, was taken to the sea by Libyans who cooperated with the defendant. They were helped by the Libyans to board a rubber boat. In practical terms, it was not possible to reach Italy with that boat. The witness was very ill and weak when she was rescued.323



These statements made to the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee correspond to the statement the witness made before the examining magistrate on 18 March 2024.



The person referred to as [witness 2] in the indictment under count 9 (witness number [number 27]) was interviewed as a witness by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee on 10 March 2021.



Regarding the stay in the camp, the witness stated that he heard that the migrants in the defendant’s shed were beaten in the morning with a hose. He would then hear the kapos say, ‘Get up, get up, otherwise I’ll beat you to death again’.324



Regarding the sea journey, this witness stated, among other things, the following. The witness was accompanied by the Libyans to the coast, where he and the other migrants had to board a boat. It was a rubber boat with an engine at the back of the boat. It was not a seaworthy boat. They were crammed into the boat with too many migrants. At a certain point, the bottom of the boat broke, as a result of which water entered the boat.325



5.4.2.7. With regard to count 1: participation in a criminal organisation



Following the decisions made under Chapter 3, the participation in a criminal organisation has already been narrowed to the commission of the offences of people smuggling and extortion. The evidence described above under 5.4.2.1. to 5.4.2.6. is therefore also probative of the offence charged under count 1.



5.4.3.

The evidential considerations



5.4.3.1. With regard to the people smuggling offences charged under counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8

and 9




5.4.3.1.1. The assessment framework of Article 197a CC
For a conviction under Article 197a(1) CC, it is required that the defendant assisted a person in obtaining entry into or transit through the Netherlands or another Member State of the European Union, or that the defendant provided an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, while he knew or had serious reasons to suspect that the entry, transit or residence was unlawful. The element of providing assistance must be interpreted in a corresponding sense to Article 48 CC. The issue is whether the defendant promoted or facilitated the foreign national’s entry and/or transit in any respect.326 The element ‘entry’ must be read as entering and ‘transit’ as transit or passage. 327 The element ‘unlawful’ in the definition of the offence in Article 197a CC must be interpreted as without any subjective right or any authority. 328



Making an occupation or habit of it as referred to in Article 197a(4) CC is involved if the defendant has committed people smuggling more often and with some regularity, whether or not professionally.



5.4.3.1.2. Modus operandi
The use of evidence underlying other similar offences as supporting evidence in the form of so-called cross-reference evidence is permitted by the Supreme Court in certain circumstances. In that case, the circumstance apparent from one or more pieces of evidence that the defendant was involved in one or more other criminal offences is also regarded as probative for the conviction of an offence. 329 The evidence relating to those other offences must, on essential points, display important similarities or characteristic resemblances with the evidence for the offence to be proven, such as a recognisable and similar pattern in the defendant’s acts. It may be relevant in that regard whether, and to what extent, the manner in which and the circumstances under which the various offences were committed correspond on essential points. 330 This is also referred to as a modus operandi.



The District Court considers that it follows from the statements of the various smuggled persons, as set out in section 5.4.2., that there was a similar method of operation in respect of the people smuggling offences. On essential points, there are characteristic similarities in the manner in which and the circumstances under which the various incidents of people smuggling charged under counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 took place. This appears to have involved a practice lasting for years in which the defendant assisted groups of migrants in obtaining entry into Europe, via a crossing over the Mediterranean Sea. In the first place, in all



cases it concerns people smuggling in which the smuggled persons first stayed for an extended period in a camp in Libya. In addition, the defendant’s method of operation displays specific similarities, as is apparent from the witness statements of the various smuggled persons. They stated that they were gathered in a camp in Libya (often around or in [place 1]), where they were assaulted and forced to call family members to pay for the crossing to Europe. While calling, the migrants were also assaulted in order to induce family members to pay. The defendant instructed his accomplices to do this. In the camp, the migrants received little food, often only a few spoonfuls of macaroni once or twice a day. Then, once payment had been made for their crossing, they were transported, whether or not by covered lorry, to a building or place near the coast and then to the sea for the crossing. The crossing took place over the Mediterranean Sea in a wooden boat or rubber boat which, after some time, was left unattended at sea and, in several cases, without an engine.



The District Court is of the opinion that, contrary to what the defence has argued, the witness statements form a solid foundation for the conviction on the people smuggling offences, also in view of the many similarities on essential points in these witness statements. The statements are also confirmed by established concrete facts, such as the satellite images and photographs of the camps and even photographs of the guards holding pieces of garden hose as a truncheon. The District Court is also of the opinion that there was a recognisable and similar pattern, a characteristic modus operandi, in the people smuggling offences alleged against the defendant. The evidence underlying the people smuggling offences charged as counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 respectively will therefore also be used as supporting evidence in the form of cross-reference evidence for the other people smuggling offences.



5.4.3.1.3. Assisting in obtaining entry and/or transit?
On the basis of the evidence set out under 5.4.2., the District Court is of the opinion that it can be lawfully and convincingly proven that the defendant intentionally assisted several persons in obtaining entry into and/or transit through several countries of the European Union. The District Court finds that witnesses stated that they stayed in
the defendant’s camp/shed, that the defendant gave orders in relation to arranging payment of the travel sum to be paid, and that the defendant decided who was allowed to board the lorry to be taken towards the coast.331 The defendant was repeatedly identified by witnesses as the boss at the camp for whose benefit they had to pay the amount for the crossing, after which the smuggled witnesses were only then allowed to continue their journey.332 The witnesses also stated that the defendant behaved and spoke towards them in such a way that they inferred from this that he was responsible for the entire journey, including the sea journey. 333



The District Court considers that the element ‘assisting in’ as referred to in Article 197a CC must, as is also apparent from the legislative history, be interpreted in a corresponding sense to Article 48 CC. The issue is therefore whether the defendant, insofar as relevant here, promoted or facilitated in any respect the smuggled person’s entry into or transit through one or more European countries. For a finding of assistance within the meaning of Article 197a(1) CC, it is sufficient that assistance was provided in part of the people smuggling route. The country of arrival or the intended final destination, or the place where the defendant’s acts relating to the assistance in fact took place, are therefore not decisive when each is considered in isolation.



In summary, the District Court is of the opinion that the defendant assisted the persons mentioned in the conviction under counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 in obtaining entry into the Netherlands and/or transit through various European countries, by providing an opportunity, means and/or information for that purpose, whether or not through an intermediary, by:



- transporting them to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at/in a place/camp near the coast
in Libya, and
- providing them with a boat, whether or not with an outboard motor and/or captain/helmsman/
guide, and
- transporting them by boat from Libya to Italy, and
- giving instructions about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof.
5.4.3.1.4. Intent regarding the final destination of the Netherlands?
The District Court finds that, insofar as relevant here, the smuggled witnesses included in the indictment334 were rescued during the crossing over the Mediterranean Sea by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and/or the Italian authorities, after which they were brought ashore in Italy. As already concluded earlier under section 3.3.2., the District Court is of the opinion that these witnesses travelled on to the Netherlands as a direct consequence of the defendant’s criminal conduct within the meaning of Article 197a CC. They travelled on within the foreseeable future after arriving in Italy and arrived in the Netherlands to apply for asylum, and thereby the legal interest protected by Article 197a CC was infringed in the Netherlands.



The defence has argued that the persons who organised the smuggling allegedly had intent to smuggle from Africa to Italy as the final destination, and that there was no intent regarding entry into the Netherlands. The District Court considers that, in the context of the offence of people smuggling as referred to in Article 197a CC, the defendant’s intent had to be directed at assistance in unlawful entry into and/or transit through one of the EU or other countries referred to in that article. It follows from the case file that the crossings were directed at a journey over the Mediterranean Sea to Italy. For a finding that the repeatedly charged element ‘in the Netherlands’ has been proven, it is sufficient for attribution to the defendant that the smuggled persons ultimately travelled on to the Netherlands within the foreseeable future.
After all, by bringing these persons to Italy, the defendant made it possible for every migrant, partly due to the open internal European borders, to travel on to other European countries, including the Netherlands. In view of the relatively short period between the arrival in Italy and obtaining entry into the Netherlands by the smuggled persons, that entry into the Netherlands can reasonably be attributed to the defendant. Through the proven smuggling activities, even if, as far as the defendant was concerned, they ended in Italy, the defendant did after all promote and/or facilitate transit through other EU countries and entry into the Netherlands.



5.4.3.1.5. Together and in association with one or more others?
The District Court will assess, on the basis of the framework set out under 5.4.1., whether there was co-perpetration by persons other than the co-defendant [co-defendant 1], on which the District Court has already expressed its view above in section 5.4.1.3.



The District Court finds that all the smuggled witnesses included in the indictment under counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 stated that there was cooperation between the defendant and his accomplices at the camp/in the shed. Witnesses stated that the defendant gave orders to his accomplices, including orders to assault the migrants at the camp. 335 Witnesses identified an accomplice, phonetically named [name 9], as the person who was involved, among other things, in the financial part of the people smuggling. [name 9] arranged the codes relating to the payments and kept a list of names of the migrants for whom the crossing had been paid. 336 In addition, various witnesses identified an accomplice, phonetically named [name 10], and an accomplice, phonetically named [name 11] or [name 21], as persons who were mainly involved in guarding and assaulting migrants at the camp/in the shed.337



On that basis, the District Court is of the opinion that there was close and conscious cooperation between the defendant and his accomplices in the joint execution of



the smuggling of the people named in the charged counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9. There was intensive and conscious cooperation, in which the defendant gave orders to the accomplices for the purpose of having the migrants pay the travel sum, maintaining order and security at the camp and putting migrants on transport to the coast. The defendant’s accomplices thereby made a material and/or intellectual contribution of sufficient weight to the people smuggling offences. In addition, it appears from the witness statements that the defendant made use of accomplices at the coast, who organised temporary shelter at the coast and arranged boats with which the migrants were then taken out to sea from Libya towards Italy. Although the investigation did not gain insight into the precise content of the cooperation and the agreements made between them, it appears from the statements that there was close and conscious cooperation between the defendant and these accomplices at the coast aimed at smuggling the migrants from Libya to Italy.



The District Court is therefore of the opinion that the defendant committed the people smuggling offences charged under counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 together and in association with others.



5.4.3.1.6. Knowledge?
The District Court is of the opinion that, on the basis of the evidence included in section 5.4.2., it can be lawfully and convincingly proven that the defendant repeatedly knew that the persons included under counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 wanted to travel unlawfully to or through one or more of the countries included in Article 197a CC, while that entry and/or transit was unlawful. After all, the migrants were smuggled and sent out onto the Mediterranean Sea in unseaworthy vessels, in the hope and uncertain expectation that they would be rescued and transferred to the European mainland, precisely because they did not have valid travel documents for regular entry into the European Union.



5.4.3.1.7. Danger to life to be feared?
Article 197a(5) CC includes danger to the life of another as an aggravating circumstance. For the interpretation of the concept of danger to life in the context of this article, case law draws on the case law concerning danger to life as referred to in Article 157 CC. The Supreme Court defines the danger to be feared on the basis of the requirement of foreseeability. This is based on foreseeability at the time of the defendant’s conduct. In order to assume that danger to the life of another has been established, it is generally required that the content of lawful evidence shows that that danger to life was concretely to be feared. This means that, at the time of assisting in entry into and/or transit to the European Union, the danger to life must have been foreseeable according to general rules of experience. The fact that the defendant himself may not have foreseen that danger is not relevant in that regard.338 The defence has not disputed this aggravating circumstance of the charged people smuggling offences.



In view of the official report drawn up by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee for the purpose of this element,339 the content of the witness statements and what is generally known about the Central Mediterranean Route, the District Court is of the opinion that, in the people smuggling offences under counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9, danger to the life of another was to be feared in each case, both in the camps and during the journey to the sea, as well as during the sea journey itself.



5.4.3.1.8. Making an occupation or habit of it?
In view of the charged periods, the number of charged offences and the number of smuggled persons whom the defendant assisted in obtaining entry into or transit through the countries included in the conviction, the District Court is of the opinion that the defendant made an occupation or habit of committing people smuggling, as proven under counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9.



5.4.3.1.9. Conclusion
In summary, the District Court is of the opinion that it has thereby been lawfully and convincingly proven that the defendant committed the people smuggling offences charged under counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9, as described below in the statement of proven facts in section 5.5.



5.4.3.2. With regard to the extortion offences charged under counts 4 and 6



5.4.3.2.1. The assessment framework of Article 317 CC
For a conviction for extortion within the meaning of Article 317(1) CC, it must be established that the defendant, with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself or another, induced someone, by violence or threat of violence, to surrender any property belonging wholly or in part to that person or to a third party. There must be a causal link between the violence or threat of violence, on the one hand, and the surrender of the property, on the other. Surrender is generally the act of the person on whom the coercion is exerted. However, it does not specifically have to be that person’s physical act; causing someone to surrender property may also fall within it.340



5.4.3.2.2. With regard to count 4



- The reliability of the statement of the witness [witness 6]
The defence argued that serious doubt must be cast on the accuracy of the statement of witness [witness 6], with witness number [number 6], that the statement is unreliable and that the facts cannot be clearly established on that basis. The defendant should therefore be acquitted of the offence charged under count 4.



The witness [witness 6] stated to the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee that she was called by her then minor brother [witness 5], with witness number [number 5], from a camp in Libya, that he was being assaulted during the telephone conversations and that her brother told her that she had to pay money quickly for the sea journey. She told her parents the content of this conversation because she herself could not pay the amount. Her parents ultimately paid for her brother’s journey. She was living in the Netherlands at the time of this telephone conversation.341



The District Court finds that the case file contains indications that witness [witness 6] may not have stated truthfully who ultimately made the payment, perhaps to protect the hawala banker in the Netherlands, but that can be left undecided. The District Court considers that, if witness [witness 6] did not state the truth on this point, this does not yet mean that her entire statement should be regarded as unreliable. In addition, for the conviction on the present offence it is not decisive that it can be established who ultimately made the payment, but it is decisive that there is sufficient causality between calling and threatening family members, in this case witness [witness 6], and the eventual transfer of an amount of money. This, as well as the connection with the Netherlands, has already been established. 342



The District Court also considers that the statement of witness [witness 6] is supported on essential points by the statement of witness [witness 5]. insofar as there are contradictions or inconsistencies in the statements about whom witness [witness 5] allegedly called from the camp, these are of subordinate importance and can also be explained by the passage of time and the operation of memory, and, moreover, witness [witness 5] gave a plausible explanation about this before the examining magistrate. He stated that he had to call several family members and gave the telephone numbers to be called to the defendant’s accomplices, who then called and gave him the telephone. He was then assaulted, as a result of which he no longer knew exactly whom he had spoken to. Upon arrival in the Netherlands, he was told that he had also called his sister [witness 6]. 343



Partly on the basis of the aforementioned considerations, the District Court sees no reason to doubt the accuracy and reliability of the parts of the statement made by witness [witness 6] that are essential to the conviction. The District Court is therefore of the opinion that the statement of witness [witness 6] may also be used as evidence.



- Is there extortion?
On the basis of the evidence set out in section 5.4.2. and with reference to what was considered in section 3.3.2.2., the District Court finds that the witness [witness 5] was forced by the defendant to call his sister [witness 6] from a camp in Libya in order to induce her to transfer, or arrange the transfer of, money for his crossing. Witness [witness 5] was assaulted during this telephone conversation. Witness [witness 6] then contacted her parents, after which the money for the journey was paid.
The District Court is of the opinion that the defendant therefore, with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself or another, by violence or threat of violence, induced witness [witness 5] and witness [witness 6] to surrender an amount of money which belonged wholly or in part to both witnesses or to a third party. The circumstance that the money was paid to one of the defendant’s accomplices not by witness [witness 5] or witness [witness 6], but by their parents, does not alter this, since causing someone to surrender property also falls within extortion.
Furthermore, in section 3.3.2.2., the District Court has already established the causal link between the violence and threat of violence and the surrender of the money by the witnesses’ parents. The circumstance that the parents themselves were not called by their son [witness 5], but became aware of the situation through his sister, witness [witness 6], does not detract from the required causal link.



In the opinion of the District Court, it has therefore been lawfully and convincingly proven that the defendant, with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself or another, by violence or threat of violence, induced witness [witness 5] and witness [witness 6] and/or their family members to surrender an amount of money belonging to one of the witnesses and/or to a third party.



5.4.3.2.3. With regard to count 6



- The use of the statement of the witness [witness 7] in the light of Article 6 ECHR
The defence argued that witness [witness 7], with witness number [number 7], was not heard by the examining magistrate and that the defence therefore did not have a proper and effective opportunity to exercise the right to examine this witness, while this witness is a Keskin witness whose statement must be regarded as ‘sole or decisive’. According to the defence, if this statement is used as evidence, there would be no fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 ECHR and the statement must therefore be excluded from the evidence. The defence has taken the position that, if the statement of this witness is excluded, there is no supporting evidence for the statement of witness [witness 3], with witness number [number 17]. The defendant should therefore be acquitted of the offence charged under count 6.



The Supreme Court has held that, in cases where the court wishes to use as evidence a statement made by a witness, while the defence, despite taking the necessary initiative, has not had a proper and effective opportunity to exercise the right to examine that witness, the court must examine whether the proceedings as a whole were fair. In assessing whether the proceedings as a whole comply with the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 ECHR, the following are relevant: (i) the reason why the right of examination cannot be exercised with regard to a witness whose statement is used as evidence, (ii) the weight of the witness’ statement, within the whole body of the results of the criminal investigation, for the conviction on the offence, and (iii) the existence of counterbalancing factors, including



procedural safeguards, which compensate for the absence of an opportunity for examination. In this regard, it is relevant that, where a proper and effective opportunity to examine a witness has been lacking, it is for the District Court to assess whether a conviction is based to a decisive extent on a statement made by a witness, in the sense that that statement is ‘the sole or decisive basis’.344



The District Court finds that the defence did not have a proper and effective opportunity to exercise the right of examination with regard to the witness [witness 7], since the examining magistrate decided not to hear this witness after various unsuccessful attempts to do so.



The District Court must then assess whether the proceedings as a whole comply with the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 ECHR. The District Court considers that the statements of the witness [witness 7] do not constitute the sole or decisive evidence in this case. Witness [witness 3], the brother of witness [witness 7], also made a witness statement. The defence was able to exercise its right of examination with regard to this witness. The statements of both witnesses also fit the modus operandi described above and the statements are supported by the statements of other witnesses concerning similar offences.



In view of this, the District Court is of the opinion that the statements of witness [witness 7], made in the absence of the defence, are not ‘the sole or decisive basis’ for a conviction on the offence charged under count 6. In the opinion of the District Court, no further counterbalancing factors are required for the absence of an opportunity for examination.



In view of the foregoing, the District Court is of the opinion that the proceedings in relation to this offence comply with the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 ECHR.



The District Court therefore reaches the conclusion that the statements of the witness [witness 7] may be used as evidence.



- Is there extortion?
On the basis of the evidence set out in section 5.4.2. and with reference to what was considered in section 3.3.2.2., the District Court finds that witness [witness 7] was forced by the defendant’s accomplices, on the defendant’s instructions, to call his brother (the witness [witness 3]) from a camp in Libya in order to induce him to transfer money for his crossing, during which telephone conversation the witness [witness 7] was assaulted. The witness [witness 3] then contacted two uncles who were living in Israel, after which they paid the money for the journey.
The District Court is of the opinion that, by doing so, the defendant, with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself or another, by violence or threat of violence, forced witness [witness 7] and witness [witness 3] to surrender an amount of money which belonged wholly or in part to one or both of those witnesses and/or to a third party. The circumstance that it was not one of the witnesses but some uncles who paid the money to one of the defendant’s accomplices does not alter this, since, as already considered above, causing someone to surrender property also falls within extortion. Furthermore, in section 3.3.2.2., the District Court has already established the causal link between the violence and threat of violence and the surrender of the money by the witnesses’ uncles. The fact that the uncles were not called directly does not mean that the required causal link is absent. The statement of witness [witness 3], in combination with the actual payment, sufficiently shows the causal link.



In the opinion of the District Court, it has therefore been lawfully and convincingly proven that the defendant, with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself or another, by violence and/or threat of violence, induced witness [witness 7] and witness [witness 3], or their family members, to surrender an amount of money belonging to the witnesses and/or to a third party.



5.4.3.2.4. Together and in association with one or more others?
The District Court will assess in more detail, on the basis of the framework set out in section 5.4.1., whether and to what extent there was co-perpetration in counts 4 and 6.



The District Court finds, with reference to what was considered in section 5.4.2.2., that, in the offence charged under count 4, money was paid for the defendant’s benefit for the crossing of the witness [witness 5]. The District Court further finds, with reference to what was considered in section 5.4.2.3., that in the offence charged under count 6 money was likewise paid for the crossing of the witness [witness 7]. The District Court concludes that there must have been one or more accomplices in Israel who received the money for the defendant. The District Court further considers, with reference to the evidence set out in section 5.4.2., that witnesses identified an accomplice, phonetically named [name 9], as the person involved, among other things, in the financial part of the people smuggling. [name 9] arranged the codes and kept a list of names of migrants for whom the crossing had been paid. It further follows from the evidence set out in sections 5.4.2.2. and 5.4.2.3. that the witnesses [witness 5] and [witness 7], while they had to call family members, were beaten and assaulted by the defendant’s accomplices.



On that basis, the District Court is of the opinion that there was close and conscious cooperation between the defendant and his aforementioned accomplices, involving joint execution of the extortion offences and intensive cooperation. The aforementioned accomplices of the defendant thereby made a material and/or intellectual contribution of sufficient weight to the extortion offences.



5.4.3.2.5. Conclusion
The District Court is of the opinion that it has thereby been lawfully and convincingly proven that the defendant, together and in association with others, committed the extortion offences charged under counts 4 and 6, as described below in the statement of proven facts in section 5.5.



5.4.3.3. With regard to participation in a criminal organisation charged under count 1



5.4.3.3.1. The assessment framework of Article 140 CC
For a conviction for participation in an organisation within the meaning of Article 140 CC, it must be established that there is an organisation whose purpose is to commit offences, and that the defendant participated in that organisation.



There must be a collaborative association with a certain durability and structure, between the defendant and at least one other person. It is not required that it be established that, in order to be regarded as a participant in that organisation, a person must have cooperated with or been aware of all others who form part of the organisation, or that the composition of the collaborative association was always the same.345 For durability or permanence, the passage of a certain period of time in respect of the collaborative association is an indication. In any event, the collaborative association must have a more than incidental character. 346



For participation in the criminal organisation, it is sufficient that the defendant generally knows, in the sense of unconditional intent (conditional intent is therefore not



sufficient), that the organisation has the commission of offences as its purpose. The defendant’s intent must be directed at participating in the criminal organisation. If it follows from the evidence that the defendant performed an act contributing to or supporting the realisation of the purpose of that organisation, his knowledge of that purpose is inherent in that act. If, by contrast, the evidence shows only that the defendant performed services for participants in a criminal organisation without it being possible to infer from this that, in doing so, he acted in the knowledge that the organisation had the commission of the aforementioned offences as its purpose, then it is not established that the defendant generally knew that that organisation had the said purpose and the defendant’s conduct does not constitute participation in that criminal organisation.



It follows from the legislative history of Article 140 CC and settled case law concerning the concept of leader that this denotes a special quality of the perpetrator, as the person who plays a central role within the organisation. The leader does not have to be the highest leader or the person who earns the most. Ultimately, what is decisive is whether the person concerned has a certain power or possesses a certain authority within the organisation. The leader distinguishes himself from the other participants through conduct such as taking initiatives, allocating tasks, giving orders, possibly sanctioning breaches of rules or agreements applicable within the organisation or distributing the proceeds of the criminal activities.



5.4.3.3.2. The criminal organisation and its participants
The District Court finds that the case file contains indications of several forms of cooperation between the defendant and others. The District Court must first assess whether this involved a lasting and structured collaborative association.



- The defendant and other people smugglers
The District Court finds that there are indications in the case file that there was some form of cooperation between the defendant and other people smugglers. The Public Prosecution Service has taken the position that the defendant and [co-defendant 1], [co-defendant 2] and [co-defendant 3] (assumed by the Public Prosecution Service to be people smugglers) formed a criminal collaborative association.



Various witnesses stated, among other things, the following about these persons and the cooperation between them and the defendant. [co-defendant 1] and the defendant allegedly operated in a similar manner, made divisions of the migrants who arrived in [place 1] and allegedly had sheds on the same walled site. [co-defendant 3] was allegedly a people smuggler and abducted migrants belonging to [co-defendant 1] and/or the defendant in order to extort them again and/or sell them back to their original smuggler. [co-defendant 2] was allegedly at the top of the organisation and was the boss of [co-defendant 1] and [defendant]. In addition, in support of this, the Public Prosecution Service presented at the hearing several messages from the Facebook accounts [account name 4] and [account name 1] with and/or about [co-defendant 1], [co-defendant 2] and [co-defendant 3] and/or their presumed Facebook accounts.



The District Court is of the opinion that, although there are indications of some form of cooperation, it cannot be established on the basis of the contents of the case file that there was an organisation with a certain durability or structured character of cooperation between the defendant and [co-defendant 1]347 and/or [co-defendant 2] and/or [co-defendant 3]. The District Court cannot establish that there was a visible division of tasks between them or coordination of activities with a view to achieving a common purpose. The investigation file contains insufficient lawful and convincing evidence for this. To that extent, count 1 cannot be found proven.



- The defendant and the presumed money couriers included in the indictment
On the basis of the case file, the District Court likewise cannot establish that there was any form of direct cooperation between the defendant, on the one hand, and the money couriers and/or hawala bankers included in the indictment and living in the Netherlands,348 on the other. In particular now that the District Court has found that there was no provable criminal collaborative association between the defendant and other people smugglers, these persons also cannot be connected to the defendant in the context of an overarching organisation. The case file does not show a direct link between the defendant and any of these money couriers and/or hawala bankers. Accordingly, no conviction on count 1 can follow in respect of that cooperation presumed by the Public Prosecution Service either.



- The defendant and his accomplices in the camp/the shed
On the basis of the evidence set out in section 5.4.2. and what was considered in section 5.4.3.1.5., the District Court finds that the defendant, together with several accomplices in varying composition, systematically and almost daily engaged in organised people smuggling for a number of years. Several witnesses, over various years, identified in particular [name 9], [name 10] and [name 11] or [name 21] (phonetically) as the defendant’s accomplices. The District Court considers that several witnesses stated that there was a division of roles at the camp. Within the organisation there was a hierarchy, in which the accomplices were directed by the defendant and also reported to him. During this longer period, there was a repeated pattern.



On that basis, the District Court is of the opinion that a lasting and structured collaborative association existed between the defendant and his accomplices, including the three specifically named.



5.4.3.3.3. The purpose of the organisation
The District Court considers that almost all witnesses stated that the defendant’s accomplices had to maintain order, on the defendant’s instructions, in the camp where the migrants stayed in the context of people smuggling from Libya to Europe.349 In addition, the accomplices had to assault the migrants in the camp while they were telephoning family members, in order thereby to ensure that payment was made for the smuggling of the migrants.350 On the basis of those statements, the District Court finds that the defendant’s cooperation with his accomplices was aimed at running the camp from which they operated for the purpose of people smuggling to Europe and at extorting the migrants and/or their family members.



On the basis of the evidence set out in section 5.4.2., the District Court is of the opinion that it can be lawfully and convincingly proven that the organisation, consisting of the defendant and his accomplices in the camp/the shed, had the purpose of committing the offences of people smuggling and extortion.



5.4.3.3.4. The defendant’s role and participation
The defendant formed part of the core of the collaborative association and fulfilled a very active and leading role within the criminal organisation. On the basis of the evidence set out in section 5.4.2., the District Court finds that it was the defendant who gave orders to others relating to guarding, assaulting and extorting the migrants and their family members. The defendant also participated in the assaults himself.351 The defendant also gave the order regarding the less-than-minimal quantities of food that the migrants in the camp/the shed were given to eat.352 The defendant also determined who was ultimately put on a lorry to be taken to the coast for the crossing to Europe.353 Many witnesses were told on arrival in the camp that the defendant was their people smuggler and that they were in his shed. He was the central



person to whom everyone within the camp/in the shed had to report and who ultimately determined what happened. 354



That the defendant was aware of the criminal purpose of the organisation is evident, partly in view of his coordinating role. The District Court infers from the foregoing that the defendant knew that he was participating in an organisation and is of the opinion that he performed acts that contributed to the realisation of the organisation’s purpose, so that his knowledge of that purpose is inherent in those acts.



All the findings referred to above lead the District Court to the conclusion that throughout the entire period charged the defendant was involved within the organisation in the organised smuggling of migrants from Libya across the Mediterranean Sea to Europe and that he had an active, decisive and directing role in this, as a result of which the aggravating element of Article 140(3) CC applies.



5.4.3.3.5. Conclusion
The District Court is of the opinion that it has been lawfully and convincingly proven that the defendant participated as leader in an organisation whose purpose was to commit the offences of people smuggling (Article 197a CC) and extortion (Article 317 CC).





5.5

The statement of proven facts



The District Court finds, on the basis of the evidence indicated, which contains the probative facts and circumstances on which the statement of proven facts is based, that it has been lawfully and convincingly proven that the defendant committed the offences charged, on the understanding that:




Count 1 – criminal organisation

he at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 January 2015 up to and including 1 July 2018, in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with another or others, or at least alone,
participated in an organisation, consisting of a collaborative association of natural persons, namely co-defendant [co-defendant 1] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 4] [co-defendant 1] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 5] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 6] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 7] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 8] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 9] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 10] and/or

one or more (other) person/persons (whose identity has remained unknown),
which organisation had as its purpose the commission of offences, namely in each case the commission of








people smuggling, as referred to in Article 197a(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of the Dutch Criminal Code, in relation to migrants from Africa via the Mediterranean Sea Route from Libya to Europe, while the defendant(s) make(s) an occupation and/or habit thereof and/or resulting in serious bodily injury or while danger to life is to be feared as a result and/or resulting in death, and/or


extortion, as referred to in Article 317 of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely forcing (the family of) the aforementioned person/persons, or at least another person, by violence or threat of violence, to surrender an amount of money, with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself or another, while he, the defendant, is/was/has been the leader and/or founder and/or director of the aforementioned organisation;





Count 2 – CASE FILE 003 / arrival 12/12/2017 Augusta

that he at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 August 2017 to 31 March 2018, or at least the period from 1 August 2017 to 9 March 2022,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)

assisted another person or other persons, namely (in any event) the persons using the following



personal details (including a child/minor),



[witness 11] (f), born on [date of birth 23] 1984 (witness [number 8]), and/or


[witness 12] (m), born on [date of birth 24] 1982 (witness [number 9]), and/or


[witness 2] (m), born on [date of birth 25] 2002 (witness [number 10]),and/or in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or



Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by, whether or not through an intermediary,




​accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or



transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or (near the coast) of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was/were, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because

(stay in the camp)




the stay in a camp of the defendant is was accompanied by many and/or daily assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or (a) stick(s), and/or







there is was insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care in the camp, and/or



(injury)








the aforementioned [witness 2] was left with scars on his legs as a result of the assaults, and/or



the aforementioned [witness 2] was paralysed in his right hand for some time as a result of the assaults, and/or




(sea journey)



the sea journey takes place took place in (one or more) small wooden and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (a high risk of) (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boats used are were not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boats used are were filled/loaded with more people than the boats are were suitable for, and/or



​the boat(s) used are were leaking or start started leaking during the crossing, and/or



no life jackets are were provided, and/or


the boats with persons on board are were at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


the persons on board have had insufficient sailing and/or swimming skills,


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence;



Count 3 – CASE FILE 004 / arrival 28/12/2017 Augusta

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 May 2017 to 28 December 2017 31 December 2018, or at least in the period from 1 May 2017 to 31 January 2022,



in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)

assisted another person or other persons, namely the persons using the following personal details (including a child/minor),



[witness 5] (m), born on [date of birth 26] 2002 (witness [number 5]), and/or


[witness 13] (m), born on [date of birth 27] 1991 (witness [number 12]) and/or


[witness 9] (m), born on [date of birth 28] 1987 1997 (witness [number 13]), and/or


in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or



Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land , Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by, whether or not through an intermediary,




​accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or



transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or (near the coast of) in Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was/were, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because

(stay in the camp)




the stay in a camp of the defendant is was accompanied by many and/or daily assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or electricity and/or a whip and/or other objects, and/or


there was/were insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities in the camp, and/or



(sea journey)



the sea journey takes place took place in (one or more) small wooden and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (a high risk of) (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are was not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are was filled/loaded with more people than the boat [witness 11] (s) are was suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) are was leaking or start started leaking during the crossing, and/or


no life jackets are were provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board are was at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or



​there is no little food and/or drinking water during the crossing, and/or



the persons on board have had insufficient sailing and/or swimming skills, and/or


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);



Count 4 – CASE FILE 004 / extortion [witness 6]

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 May 2017 to 28 December



2017,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone,
with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself and/or another by violence and/or threat of violence
forced [witness 5] and/or his sister [witness 6] and/or one or more (other) family members and/or friends and/or acquaintances of that [witness 5] to surrender (a total of) 9,000 US dollars, or at least 8,000 US dollars, or at least (twice) 4,000 US dollars, or at least one or more sum(s) of money, in any event any property, which belonged wholly or in part to that [witness 6] and/or one or more (other) family members and/or friends and/or acquaintances, in any event to a third party,
by



having that [witness 5] call his sister [witness 6], living in the Netherlands, and/or (other) family members from Libya, and/or


beating and/or torturing and/or assaulting that [witness 5] during that/those telephone conversation(s), whereby that [witness 5] screamed in pain and/or fear, and/or



whereby that [witness 5] screamed, and/or



threatening that [witness 5] with death if his family and/or friends and/or acquaintances did not pay one or more sums of money (quickly enough);





Count 5 – CASE FILE 008 / arrival 24-04-2018 Messina

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 July 2017 to 24 April 2018, or at least in or around the period from 1 July 2017 to 21 July 2021,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)

assisted another person or other persons, namely the persons using the following personal details (including a child/minor),
l . [witness 14] (f), born on [date of birth 29] 2000 (witness [number 14]), and/or


2. [ [witness 7] (m), born on [date of birth 30] 1994 (witness [number 7]), and/or
2. [ [witness 13] (m), born on [date of birth 31] 1994 (witness [number 15]), and/or
2. [ [witness 12] (m), born on [date of birth 32] 1990 (witness [number 16]), and/or
2. [ in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or


Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Seaand Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by, whether or not through an intermediary,




​accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or



transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or (near the coast) in Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was/were, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because

(stay in the camp)


- the stay in a camp of the defendant is was accompanied by many and/or daily (serious)


assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or other objects, and/or

- there is were insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities in the camp, and/or

(injury)



the aforementioned [witness 11] [witness 7] was left with scars on his hands and/or upper legs as a result of the assaults, and/or



the aforementioned [witness 4] sustained open wounds and/or peeled skin as a result of the assaults, and/or




(sea journey)



the sea journey takestook place in (one or more) rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (a high risk of) (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used was are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used wereare filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) wasare suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used leaked or started leaking or filled with water during the crossing, and/or



no or at least insufficient life jackets are provided, or at least life jackets of insufficient quality wereare provided, and/or


the boat [witness 11] (s) with persons on board wereare at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor( s), and/or



​there is no food and/or drinking water during the crossing, and/or



while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);



Count 6 – CASE FILE 005 / extortion [witness 7]

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 May 2017 to 24 April 2018, in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone,
with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself and/or another,
by violence and/or threat of violence, forced [witness 7] and/or his brother and/or one or more (other) family members and/or friends and/or acquaintances of that [witness 7] to surrender (a total of) 1,700.00, or at least one or more sum(s) of money, in any event any property, which belonged wholly or in part to that [witness 7] and/or one or more (other)family members and/or friends and/or acquaintances, in any event to a third party,



having that [witness 7] call his brother and/or (other) family members living in the Netherlands from Libya, and/or


beating and/or torturing and/or assaulting that [witness 7] during that/those telephone conversation(s), whereby that [witness 7] screamed in pain and/or fear, and/or



whereby that [witness 7] screamed, and/or



threatening that [witness 7] with death if his family and/or friends and/or acquaintances did not pay one or more sum(s) of money (quickly enough);





Count 7 – CASE FILE 001 / arrival 01-08-2015 Lampedusa

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from April 2015 to 1 August 2015, or at least the period from April 2015 to 27 January 2022

24 February 2016 in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,

together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)

assisted another person or other persons, namely the persons using the following personal details,



[witness 12] (f), born on [date of birth] 1992 (witness [number 19]), and/or


[witness 9] (m), born on [date of birth] 1991 (witness [number 20]), and/or


[witness 15] (m), born on [date of birth] 1989 (witness [number 21]), and/or


[witness 13] (m), born on [date of birth] 1987 (witness [number 22]), and/or


[witness 1] (m), born on [date of birth] 1987 (witness [number 1]), and/or




6. [ [witness 2] (m), born on [date of birth] 1987 (witness [number 2] /official report no. 3627), and/or
6. [ in gaining access to or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or

provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by, whether or not through an intermediary,



​accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or



transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or (near the coast) in Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was/were, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because

(stay in the camp)




the stay in a camp of the defendant iswas accompanied by many and/or daily assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or sticks and/or other (sharp) objects,


there iswas insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care at the camp, and/or



(injury)

- the aforementioned [witness 13] [witness 9] sustained a bleeding head wound as a result of the assaults and/or permanent scars on his occiput and/or calf, and/or

(sea journey)



the sea journey takestook place in (one or more) two small wooden and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (a high risk of) (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are was/were not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used arewere filled/loaded with more people than the boat [witness 11] (s) arewere suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) arewere leaking or startstarted leaking during the crossing, and/or


no life jackets are were provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board arewere at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


the persons on board had insufficient sailing and/or swimming skills, and/or


there iswas no food and/or drinking water on the boat(s), and/or


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);



Count 8 – CASE FILE 006 / arrival 04-02-2018 Messina

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from January 2017 to


4 February 2018April 2018, or at least in the period from January 2017 to 12 April 2021, in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)



assisted another person or other persons, namely the minor person using the following personal details,



[witness 16] (f), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 23]), and/or


in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or



Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by, whether or not through an intermediary,




​accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or



transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or (near the coast) in Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was/were, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because

(stay in the camp)




the stay in a camp of the defendant is was accompanied by many and/or daily assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or (a) stick(s), and/or other objects, and/or


there is/are was/were insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities in the camp, and/or



(sea journey)



the sea journey takes place took place in (one or more) small wooden and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (a high risk of) (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are was not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are was filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are was suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are was leaking or start started leaking and/or fill up filled up with water during the crossing and/or


no or at least insufficient life jackets are were provided, or at least life jackets of insufficient quality were provided, and/or



​the boat(s) with persons on board were was at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or



the persons on board have had insufficient sailing and/or swimming skills, and/or


there is was no food and/or drinking water during the crossing, and/or


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) an occupation or habit of committing this offence;



Count 9 – CASE FILE 007 / arrival 12-03-2018 Pozzallo

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from November 2016 to 12 March 2018, or at least in the period from November 2016 to 12 January 2022 10 February 2021,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)

assisted another person or other persons, namely the persons using the following personal details,



(including one or more child(ren)/minor(s)),








[witness 8] (m), born on [date of birth] 2001 (witness [number 28]), and/or







[witness 9] (m), born on [date of birth] 2001 (witness [number 29]), and/or







[witness 2] (m), born on [date of birth] 2001 (witness [number 27]), and/or



​[witness 1] (f), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 30]), and/or



[witness 15] (m), born on [date of birth] 1996 (witness [number 26]), and/or







[witness 8] (m), born on [date of birth] 2003 (witness [number 31]), and/or


[witness 8] (f), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 32]), and/or


in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or



Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by, whether or not through an intermediary,




​accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or



transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or (near the coast) in Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/orhis co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was/were, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because

(stay in the camp)




the stay in a camp of the defendant wasis accompanied by many and/or daily (serious) assaults, namely by (among other things):


beating one or more migrants, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses, in which there may or may not be a piece of metal, and/or other objects, and/or



​dripping molten plastic over the bare back of a person, and/or



hanging the aforementioned [witness 13] [witness 15] upside down with his hands on his back and legs tied together and/or while he was beaten whether or not with a stick and/or doused with water, and/or


there is was insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities in the camp, and/or



(injury)

- the aforementioned [witness 13] [witness 15] was left with scars on his arms and/or legs as a result of the assaults, and/or

(sea journey)



the sea journey takestook place in (one or more) small wooden and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (a high risk of) (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used arewas not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are was filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) was suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are leaking and/or start leaking and/or fillfilled with water during the crossing, and/or



no or at least insufficient life jackets are provided, or at least life jackets of insufficient quality are provided, and/or






​the boat(s) with persons on board were at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or




​there is no food and/or drinking water during the crossing, and/or



while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4).


The District Court does not consider proven what has been charged against the defendant in addition or otherwise, and will therefore acquit him thereof.



The linguistic and/or clerical errors appearing in the indictment have been corrected in the statement of proven facts. The defendant has not thereby been prejudiced in his defence.








6The criminality of the proven facts



The facts proven under count 1 are punishable under Article 140 CC, the facts proven under counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 under Article 197a CC, and the facts proven under counts 4 and 6 under Articles 312 and 317 CC. No facts or circumstances have become plausible that exclude the criminality of the facts. The proven facts constitute:





count 1:

the offence of: participating as leader in an organisation whose purpose is to commit offences;





counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9,
in each case
:

the offence of: people smuggling, while the offence is committed by a person who has made an occupation or habit of it and while the offence is committed in association by several persons and while danger to the life of another is to be feared as a result;





counts 4, 6,
in each case
:

the offence of: extortion, while the offence is committed by two or more persons acting together.








7The criminal liability of the defendant



No facts or circumstances have become plausible that exclude the defendant’s criminal liability. The District Court therefore finds that the defendant is criminally liable for the proven facts.








8The sentence or measure to be imposed



8.1

The application of the public prosecutor



Having regard, among other things, to the seriousness and scale of the offences, the public prosecutor has applied for the defendant to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty (20) years, less the time spent in pre-trial detention. This is the statutory maximum sentence in the present criminal case. The public prosecutor argued that, in the context of Article 63 CC, the District Court does not need to take account of the Ethiopian conviction and that it is still unclear whether the defendant will serve the remaining part of that sentence in the Netherlands. This has indeed been requested by the Ethiopian authorities, but the final decision on this will have to be taken by the Minister of Justice and Security.




8.2

The position of the defence



With regard to the sentence, the defence requested that the sentence be moderated, since it does not consider the maximum term of imprisonment appropriate. To that end, the defence first argued that the Public Prosecution Service’s account, namely that the defendant was the ringleader of an international smuggling network, is incorrect and that the central role in this network cannot be attributed to him. The defence also requested that, when imposing sentence, account be taken of the Ethiopian judgment of 14 June 2021, by which the defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eighteen years and a fine of 200,000.00 birr. The defendant still has to serve more than fifteen years of this prison sentence, possibly in the Netherlands. A term of imprisonment of twenty years would mean that the defendant would have to spend a total of thirty-five years in detention, which, according to the defence, would result in undesirable and disproportionate punishment.




8.3

The grounds for a sentence or measure



When imposing sentence, the District Court takes into account the nature and seriousness of the offences committed, the circumstances in which they were committed and the person of the defendant as they have emerged from the case file and during the hearing in court. In doing so, the District Court considers the following in particular to be important.



8.3.1.


The nature and seriousness of the offences

For several years, the defendant committed a very serious, large-scale and violent form of people smuggling. The defendant was the leader of a criminal organisation that was involved on a large scale in smuggling men, (pregnant) women and children from Libya to Europe by boat via the dangerous Central Mediterranean Route in a degrading manner. The defendant exploited the vulnerable position in which the migrants found themselves. They were prepared to take great risks and, under threat and coercion, had to pay substantial amounts for the crossing. In addition, they were treated in an inhumane manner. In the camp where the defendant was in charge, and during the life-threatening crossing to Europe, migrants were exposed to appalling and life-threatening conditions. Large groups of migrants were left to their fate on the Mediterranean Sea without life jackets, in overloaded and often leaking and defective boats. Before they had to endure this dreadful sea journey, they were placed in a camp, a shed and/or a warehouse in Libya, where large numbers of migrants stayed in a shed that was too small for that number of people. There they were subjected to (daily) assaults, extortion and starvation. The migrants in the camp were in mortal fear. The witnesses stated that they thought they would not survive their stay in the camp or the sea journey. A number of them, including two persons entitled to address the court at the hearing, gave compelling statements about their personal experiences and about what happened to other migrants with whom they stayed in the camp.
Some others paid for their desire for freedom and safety with their lives. It has appeared from the statements of the migrants that, years later, they still suffer greatly and experience mental pain from what they went through at the time. For the defendant, all this was apparently subordinate to his financial gain.



People smuggling undermines government policy on combating the provision of illegal entry into and residence in the Netherlands, as well as illegal transit through countries of the European Union. The defendant’s method of operation seriously undermined the Dutch government’s policy of pursuing a regulated asylum policy, and the public support required for that policy. A criminal organisation such as the present one also constitutes a threat to the safety of Dutch society, given the power it exercises over its members and over parts of international society and society in general. The defendant had a leading role in this. There are also indications that, from detention, the defendant made efforts to obtain false documents and to influence (or have others influence) witnesses, which the District Court finds highly reprehensible and disturbing. It illustrates the dangers to Dutch society posed by criminal collaborative associations with international branches and contacts, as is the case here.




8.3.2.


The personal circumstances of the defendant

The District Court has taken note of an extract from the defendant’s criminal record dated 28 August 2025. This shows that the defendant has not previously been convicted in the Netherlands of a similar criminal offence. As already mentioned in section



3.3.3.
of this judgment, the defendant was sentenced by an Ethiopian judgment on 14 June 2021 to a term of imprisonment of eighteen years and a fine of 200,000.00 birr for several people smuggling offences.


Following the pathway consultation of 14 March 2023, the defendant was observed for six weeks by the Pieter Baan Centre (hereinafter: the PBC). In its report of 4 January 2024, on the basis of information provided by the defendant, the PBC outlined the defendant’s life history. The defendant told the PBC that he was raised by his mother and that his father was an Ethiopian soldier. From the age of seven, the defendant went to work for a farmer. As a child, he had to be independent at an early age. When he was eighteen years old, he had to join the army. In 2004 he became the father of a daughter and in 2006 the father of a son. In the army, he saw and experienced violent things. In 2014 he decided to flee together with a friend during a patrol and went towards Sudan, where he worked as a taxi driver and later opened a café. He became friends with an opponent of the Eritrean government, as a result of which the defendant himself became a target for the Eritrean government and had to go into hiding. He could not obtain official identification and therefore arranged a false document under the name by which he was summoned. With this, he also travelled to Dubai and subsequently to Ethiopia. There he was arrested in 2018 on suspicion of causing a car accident and leaving the scene of the offence. In 2021 he was found guilty of people smuggling and imprisoned. In 2022 he was brought to the Netherlands. In the PBC, he repeatedly stated that he was someone else and had not committed the offences.
The PBC reported that, partly because of the language barrier, little insight was obtained during the observation period into who the defendant is and what he thinks and experiences. The defendant comes across as a shy, self-reliant and cooperative man who is disciplined and reserved.



The PBC concluded that there are no indications of a psychiatric disorder, an intellectual disability or any other disorder in the defendant. Nor are there any indications of post-traumatic stress disorder or another trauma-related disorder. A personality disorder cannot formally be excluded, but no evident features of this were seen. It was not possible to arrive at a structured professional judgement on the risk of reoffending.
Taking everything into account, the PBC advises that, in the event of a conviction, the defendant should be regarded as fully responsible for his actions.





8.3.3.

The sentencing



The District Court finds that the present case, by reason of both the scale and the nature of the offences, is of exceptional seriousness, on the one hand because of the undermining of Dutch and European immigration policy, but on the other hand and above all because of the particularly cruel, violent and degrading treatment to which the defendant and his co-perpetrators subjected the migrants. The defendant and his co-perpetrators acted ruthlessly, without compassion and without regard for human dignity. It appears that they did so solely in order to extort as much money as possible from vulnerable and helpless people who were seeking a better future.



The maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed for the offence of people smuggling is fifteen years. Now that there is concurrence of several offences, this maximum sentence is increased by one third pursuant to Article 57 CC. The maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed is therefore twenty years. The Public Prosecution Service has demanded the imposition of this sentence.



The District Court is of the opinion that the proven facts justify imposing the sentence demanded. It is true that not all elements of the indictment have led to a conviction, but what has been found proven undoubtedly also justifies the imposition of the maximum term of imprisonment.



The District Court sees no reason in the defendant’s personal circumstances to impose a lower sentence. The defendant has been considered fully responsible for his actions and has taken no responsibility or even expressed any remorse for his conduct.



The District Court does not take into account the Ethiopian conviction. Article 63 CC does not apply to foreign criminal convictions. The defence expressly requested that the maximum sentence not be imposed. This is because, in concrete terms, now that the Ethiopian judgment has been taken over by the Netherlands, it would mean that the maximum sentence would be considerably exceeded. The District Court does not follow the defence in this, because it has not been established that the sentence has been or will be taken over. It appears from the extradition documents that the Ethiopian authorities did indeed request the transfer of the enforcement of the sentence, but it has not been shown that the Minister of Justice and Security, the competent authority in the Netherlands, has agreed to this. The District Court thereby expressly leaves unanswered the question whether it would have taken this into account if the sentence had in fact been taken over. Should the sentence be taken over by the Netherlands in the future, the defendant will have access to legal proceedings surrounded by sufficient safeguards.



The District Court will therefore impose on the defendant a term of imprisonment of twenty (20) years, less the time already spent in pre-trial detention.



Execution of the term of imprisonment to be imposed will take place entirely within the penitentiary institution.












9The damage suffered by injured parties



9.1

The claims of the injured parties



9.1.1.


The claim of injured party [witness 1], with witness number [number 1]

Victim [witness 1] has joined these criminal proceedings as an injured party. The injured party claims that the defendant be ordered to pay compensation in the total amount of €22,506.02 (twenty-two thousand five hundred and six euros and two euro cents),



plus statutory interest from the time at which the damage arose. The material damage claimed consists of the following item:
- restitution of ‘travel money’ paid to the defendant in the amount of €2,006.02.
An amount of €10,500.00 is claimed as compensation for non-material damage. The non-material damage claimed consists of the following items:
- conditions in the camp in the amount of €1,500.00;
- assaults, torture and threats in the camp in the amount of €1,500.00;
- sea journey/danger to life to be feared in the amount of €7,500.00.
A further amount of €10,000.00 is claimed for future damage.




9.1.2.


The claim of injured party [witness 3], with witness number [number 3]

Victim [witness 3] has joined these criminal proceedings as an injured party. The injured party claims that the defendant be ordered to pay compensation in the total amount of €35,956.40 (thirty-five thousand nine hundred and fifty-six euros and forty euro cents), plus statutory interest from the time at which the damage arose.
The material damage claimed consists of the following item:
- restitution of ‘travel money’ paid to the defendant in the amount of €2,456.40.
An amount of €22,500.00 is claimed as compensation for non-material damage. The non-material damage claimed consists of the following items:
- conditions in the camp in the amount of €5,000.00;
- assaults, torture and threats in the camp in the amount of €10,000.00;
- sea journey/danger to life to be feared in the amount of €7,500.00.
A further amount of €10,000.00 is claimed for future damage.




9.1.3.


The claim of injured party [witness 2], with witness number [number 2]

Victim [witness 2] has joined these criminal proceedings as an injured party. The injured party claims that the defendant be ordered to pay compensation in the total amount of €27,647.31 (twenty-seven thousand six hundred and forty-seven euros and thirty-one euro cents), plus statutory interest from the time at which the damage arose.
The material damage claimed consists of the following item:
- restitution of ‘travel money’ paid to the defendant in the amount of €3,647.31.
An amount of €14,000.00 is claimed as compensation for non-material damage. The non-material damage claimed consists of the following items:
- conditions in the camp in the amount of €1,500.00;
- assaults, torture and threats in the camp in the amount of €5,000.00;
- sea journey/danger to life to be feared in the amount of €7,500.00.
A further amount of €10,000.00 is claimed for future damage.




9.1.4.


The claim of injured party [witness 4], with witness number [number 4]

Victim [witness 4] has joined these criminal proceedings as an injured party. The injured party claims that the defendant be ordered to pay compensation in the total amount of €80,000.00 (eighty thousand euros), plus statutory interest from the time at which the damage arose.
An amount of €55,000.00 is claimed as compensation for non-material damage. The non-material damage claimed consists of the following items:



- conditions in the camp in the amount of €7,500.00;
- assaults, torture and threats in the camp in the amount of €20,000.00;
- sexual violence in the amount of €20,000.00;
- sea journey/danger to life to be feared in the amount of €7,500.00.
A further amount of €25,000.00 is claimed for future damage.





9.2

The position of the public prosecutor



The public prosecutor has taken the position that the claims of [witness 1], [witness 3], [witness 2] and [witness 4] are allowable, with the exception of future damage, including statutory interest.




9.3

The position of the defence



The defence has primarily taken the position that the injured parties should be declared inadmissible in their claims, because the District Court cannot proceed to an assessment of the claims in view of the argued inadmissibility of the Public Prosecution Service. In the alternative, the injured parties should be declared inadmissible in their claims in view of the full acquittal argued for. In the further alternative, the injured parties should be declared inadmissible in their claims owing to the lack of expertise of the experts Ibrahim and Otto, as a result of which it is impossible to arrive at a careful assessment of the civil claims in the criminal proceedings. In the utmost alternative, the injured parties should be declared inadmissible in their claims, since dealing with the claims in these criminal proceedings imposes a disproportionate burden.




9.4

The judgment of the District Court



9.4.1.

With regard to the claims of [witness 3] and [witness 4]



The District Court is of the opinion that injured parties [witness 3] and [witness 4] should be declared inadmissible in their claims. The District Court cannot proceed to an assessment of the civil claims in view of the inadmissibility of the Public Prosecution Service, in respect of the elements of the indictment relating to [witness 3] and [witness 4], owing to the absence of jurisdiction. The District Court will therefore declare these injured parties inadmissible in their claims and determine that, to that extent, they may bring the claims only before the civil court.





9.4.2.

With regard to the claims of [witness 1] and [witness 2]



When dealing with the preliminary questions, the District Court held that Dutch criminal law is applicable to the criminal case against the defendant pursuant to Article 2 CC. Now that the criminal case against the defendant is being conducted according to the rules of Dutch criminal law, Article 51f CCP is also applicable in this case. The injured party is afforded the opportunity to join the criminal proceedings as an injured party with a civil claim. The question that must now be answered by the court of its own motion is according to which national civil law the claims should be assessed: Dutch law or Libyan law.



The lawyers for the injured parties have taken the written, substantiated position that the assessment of the claims should take place under Libyan law, on the basis of the rules of the so-called Rome II Regulation355. They set out the legal framework under Libyan law in a written position paper dated 26 June 2025.



The Public Prosecution Service endorsed this.



In the written response of 25 August 2025, the defence took the position that the application of Libyan law should be assumed, since the parties have not expressly agreed that Dutch law is applicable. The defence also disputed the accuracy and completeness of the framework outlined by the lawyers for the injured parties, for lack of knowledge.



9.4.2.1. The expertise of [name 23] and [name 24] regarding Libyan civil law
In response to the foregoing and the pro forma hearing of 22 September 2025, on 1 October 2025 the District Court referred the case to the examining magistrate for the appointment of [name 23] and [name 24] as experts with regard to the issue of the application of Libyan law to the civil claims of the injured parties.



The District Court received this expert report on 27 October 2025. The experts Otto and Ibrahim answered a number of questions formulated by the District Court, the defence and the lawyers for the injured parties concerning their academic background and Libyan law and its application. They reported, among other things, that the account of Libyan law as set out by the lawyers for the injured parties is correct, and supplemented it by explaining how liability and damage must be determined under Libyan law.



The defence disputed the expertise of the court-appointed experts Otto and Ibrahim and argued that it cannot be established with sufficient certainty that the Libyan civil liability framework outlined by them actually corresponds to Libyan legislation and legal practice. This should lead to the injured parties being declared inadmissible in their claims.



On the basis of the curricula vitae, what was put forward at the hearing and the content of the report issued, the District Court is of the opinion that the experts [name 23] and [name 24], as a pair, possess sufficient expertise to act in the present case. At the hearings of 22 September 2025 and 1 October 2025, the District Court had already held that it considered the experts, as a pair, sufficiently expert in Libyan civil law to issue an expert report on this. The experts reported as a pair and confirmed and further explained what had been set out by the lawyers for the injured parties. This also corresponds with what can be found in public sources on Libyan civil liability legislation and legal practice. The District Court therefore has no reason to doubt the expertise of [name 23] and [name 24] on the points on which they issued an expert report.



The District Court will use the expert report and what has been submitted by the lawyers for the injured parties when assessing the claims of the injured parties.



9.4.2.2. The law applicable to the claims
The question of the law applicable to the claims in tort of the injured parties in the present case must, pursuant to Article 10:159 of the Dutch Civil Code, be answered on the basis of the rules of the so-called Rome II Regulation. The Rome II Regulation (EC Regulation No 864/2007, hereinafter: Rome II) has applied since 11 January 2009 in all Member States of the European Union (with the exception of Denmark) and therefore also in the Netherlands. After all, the claims of the injured parties concern non-contractual claims within the meaning of Article 1 Rome II. Pursuant to Article 3, Rome II has a universal formal scope of application. This means that this Regulation also applies to cases brought before the Dutch court in which a



tort committed outside the European Union is at issue.



Article 4(1) of Rome II provides the general rule for determining the applicable law. The law of the country in which the damage occurs (lex loci damni) is the law applicable to a tort. This applies regardless of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred and regardless of the countries in which the indirect consequences of that event occur. In the present case, this main rule leads to Libyan law, since the injured parties were in camps in Libya and began the crossing by sea in Libya.



Article 15 of Rome II sets out the scope with regard to the substantive legal issues governed by that applicable Libyan law, including the basis and extent of liability, determining who may be held liable for an act, the existence, nature and assessment of the damage or of what is claimed, and determining who is entitled to compensation for personally suffered damage.



On the basis of the foregoing, the District Court is of the opinion that the claims of the injured parties must be assessed under Libyan civil law.



9.4.2.3. Disproportionate burden on the criminal proceedings?
The defence argued, in the utmost alternative, that dealing with the claims of the injured parties would impose a disproportionate burden on the criminal proceedings, and that this should lead to the injured parties being declared inadmissible in their claims.



The District Court is of the opinion that where foreign law is applicable to a claim, this does not immediately mean that the claim imposes a disproportionate burden on the criminal proceedings. The District Court considers that, in view of the international aspects of the claims, written argument was conducted in advance concerning the claims and which law should be applied. In addition, an expert report was issued on this issue. The defence was given the opportunity to ask substantive questions concerning the application of Libyan law, but, with the exception of the question whether any guidelines are known for the amount of compensation in Libya, did not make use of this opportunity.



The District Court considers that these are two relatively straightforward claims. In respect of both claims, the material damage claimed consists of only one item, namely restitution of the amount paid in relation to the crossing, and in both cases the non-material damage would be a direct consequence of the acts charged against the defendant. Other aspects such as causality, damage and limitation are, in that sense, simple in nature or are not at issue. The determination of the criminal allegation has already taken place, meaning that, as under Dutch civil law, it may be assumed under Libyan civil law that there is an unlawful act or fault.



The District Court is therefore of the opinion that there is no disproportionate burden on the criminal proceedings, so there is likewise no reason to declare the injured parties inadmissible, or manifestly inadmissible, in their claims on that ground.



9.4.2.4. The assessment of the claims
In view of the provisions of Article 15 of Rome II, the basis and extent of the liability, as well as the nature and assessment of the damage, must be determined under Libyan law.



9.4.2.4.1. Basis of the claims
Libyan civil law is laid down in the Libyan Civil Code (hereinafter: LCC) of 1954. Liability law has remained unchanged since 1954. Articles 166 and 167



LCC set out the basis of the claims of the injured parties, namely tort. Criminal offences are regarded as a tort (‘wrongful act’), except where no damage is caused as a result.356



In its judgment of 20 April 2002, the Libyan Supreme Court summarised the rules concerning liability in tort. 357 Article 166 LCC provides that every fault that causes damage to another gives rise to an obligation to pay compensation on the part of the person by whom the act was committed. In order to establish liability and an obligation to compensate damage, three elements must be met. There must be:
I. a fault, either by breach of a legal obligation or by departure from the conduct normally expected of a normal person;
II. damage, which may consist both of material damage, consisting of an infringement of the body or property of the injured person, and moral damage, consisting of damage relating to feelings and emotions;
III. causality, in the sense that there is a direct link between the fault committed by the liable person and the damage suffered by the victim.
9.4.2.4.2. Liability
The Libyan Supreme Court has held that every fault that causes damage to another imposes an obligation to pay compensation on the person by whom the fault was committed. 358 The standard of the ‘ordinary person’ under Libyan liability law is comparable to that of the average, reasonable person acting reasonably under Dutch civil law, and under Libyan law, as in the Netherlands, the doctrine of reasonable attribution applies.



Liability requires attributable conduct (‘fault’). Under Libyan law, a ‘fault’ may consist of an ‘act’ or an ‘omission’.
‘Discretion’ is an essential element of fault under Libyan law and is a moral component of fault, without which fault does not exist, and fault is the basis of a person’s liability for his or her acts. Article 167(1) LCC states that a person is liable in tort only if he or she has ‘discretion’, in other words is able to distinguish between right and wrong. The attributable conduct must have caused damage to another (‘causes injury to another’), which means that the damage suffered must be causally linked to the alleged act. When the elements of fault and the resulting damage have been established, liability arises on the part of the person, unless an exception applies. The exceptions are: force majeure (Article 168 LCC), a justification ground (Article 169 LCC), acting in the capacity of a public official (Article 170 LCC) or acting out of necessity (Article 171 LCC).
If the aforementioned requirements are met and no exception applies, the person who commits the act is liable in damages towards the other person (‘obligation to make reparation’).



Article 172 LCC provides that, if several parties are responsible for the same damage (‘injury’), they are individually and jointly liable for compensation for the total damage. This does, however, require that liability first be established by proving fault, damage and causality.359



9.4.2.4.3. Damage
Damage may consist of two types under Libyan liability law.
First, the damage may be material in nature, in the sense of financial loss suffered by the injured person. Compensation for material damage depends on there having been an infringement of a financial interest of the affected party. The damage must be real and must actually have occurred or still occur in the future. Secondly, the damage may be moral in nature, in the sense of non-material damage, which does not fall under financial loss. The locus of non-material damage for the purposes of compensation lies in emotions,



feeling and affection. If the statutory requirements are met, both claims of a material nature and claims of a moral nature may lead to a well-founded claim for compensation.



Article 173 LCC governs the assessment of damage by the court. The court has broad discretion in assessing damage and may take all the circumstances of the case into account.



Under Libyan law, statutory interest is calculated from the date on which the claim is filed.



9.4.2.4.4. The assessment
The District Court is of the opinion that, on the basis of the evidence used and the hearing in court, it has been established that, by the offence proven under count 7, being the ‘fault’, the defendant directly caused damage to the injured parties [witness 1] (witness [number 1]) and [witness 2] (witness [number 2]).



The injured parties have claimed compensation for material damage suffered by them, consisting of the total amount of the travel sums paid by them.360 This concerns €2,006.02 in respect of [witness 1]361 and €3,647.31 in respect of [witness 2]362. This is material damage directly suffered as a result of the offence proven under count 7. These heads of damage have not been disputed, are sufficiently substantiated and are real. The District Court will therefore allow these items.



The injured parties have also claimed compensation for non-material damage suffered by them as a result of what was charged under count 7. The injured parties have provided reasons for their position that they suffered damage as a result of the inhumane conditions at the camp, the danger to life to be feared during the journey, and the torture, assaults and threats, and have requested that this damage be assessed at a total of
€10,500 in respect of [witness 1] and €14,000.00 in respect of [witness 2]. That non-material damage was suffered by the injured parties has not been disputed by the defence. The District Court considers it sufficiently substantiated that the injured parties suffered non-material damage, or moral damage. In this regard, the District Court takes account of the extensive and thorough substantiation of the claims and the evidence already set out in respect of what was charged under count 7. The District Court finds that, in respect of both [witness 1] and [witness 2], this concerns a violation of the physical and mental integrity of the injured parties. In addition, the District Court finds that it is a matter of common knowledge that offences such as the present ones constitute a serious infringement of the integrity and private life of victims and that victims may have to contend with the psychological consequences of such offences for a considerable time. The District Court will determine the extent of the non-material damage on the basis of the aforementioned Libyan liability law provision in Article 173 LCC and will determine the amounts in accordance with what has been claimed by the injured parties.



The District Court will allow the claim of [witness 1] up to an amount of €12,506.02, plus statutory interest from 29 October 2025, being the date on which the claim was filed.



The District Court will allow the claim of [witness 2] up to an amount of €17,647.31, plus statutory interest from 29 October 2025, being the date on which the claim was filed.



The defendant is jointly and severally liable under civil law, together with his co-perpetrators, for the damage. This means that the defendant and his co-perpetrators are each individually liable to the injured parties for the full amount.



The District Court will declare the injured parties [witness 1] and [witness 2] inadmissible in their claims in respect of the future damage claimed and determine that the injured parties may bring the claims to that extent only before the civil court. Although Libyan law also provides for the award of future damage, the District Court understands that provision to mean that, at the time of the award, it must be established that that damage will actually be suffered in the future. That is not the case here, or at least substantiation showing this is lacking.





9.5

The compensation measure



Counsel for the injured parties requested on behalf of [witness 1] and [witness 2], and the public prosecutor applied, that the compensation measure also be imposed.



The District Court will impose the measure referred to in Article 36f CC, since the defendant is liable under civil law towards the injured parties [witness 1] and [witness 2] for the damage caused by the offences.



If the defendant does not pay in full, this obligation may be supplemented by, respectively:



97 (ninety-seven) days’ detention in respect of the claim of [witness 1];


123 (one hundred and twenty-three) days’ detention in respect of the claim of [witness 2];


whereby application of detention does not extinguish the payment obligation.







10The statutory provisions applied



The decision to be given below is based on the articles of law referred to above.








11The decision



The District Court:






nullity of the summons



- declares the summons null and void in respect of the element (in any event) and and/or at least one or more (other) persons whose identity has remained unknown in counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10;



inadmissibility of the Public Prosecution Service



- declares the Public Prosecution Service inadmissible in the prosecution in respect of the offences charged under counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, owing to the absence of jurisdiction, as regards the element for gain, assisted in obtaining residence in (paragraph 2);

- declares the Public Prosecution Service inadmissible in the prosecution in respect of the offence charged under count 5, owing to the absence of jurisdiction, in respect of the people smuggling of the persons included in the indictment, [witness 4] with witness number [number 4] and [witness 3] with


witness number [number 3];




declares the Public Prosecution Service inadmissible in the prosecution in respect of the offence charged under count 1, owing to the absence of jurisdiction, as regards the purpose relating to the elements:



hostage-taking
, as referred to in Article 282 and/or 282a of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely unlawfully depriving one or more persons of their liberty and/or keeping them deprived of their liberty, whether or not with the purpose of forcing the family of that/those person/persons to pay for the crossing to Europe, and/or



(..)



violent offences
, as referred to in Article 285 and/or Article 300 and/or Article 302 and/or Article 287 of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely threatening with deadly and/or other violence and/or assault(s), whether or not resulting in serious bodily injury and/or death, and/or manslaughter, committed against the aforementioned person/persons, and/or




sexual violent offences
, as referred to in Article 242 and/or 246 of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely rape and/or indecent assault of one or more migrants, and/or;





declares the Public Prosecution Service inadmissible in the prosecution, owing to breach of the speciality principle, in respect of count 11 (money laundering) and the related parts of count 1 (participation in a criminal organisation), insofar as this concerns the elements:



money laundering
, as referred to in Articles 420bis and 420ter of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely collecting large amounts of money in cash from family members in the Netherlands and transferring, moving, converting, acquiring, possessing, concealing and disguising those proceeds and thereby securing them, and/or




hawala (underground) banking
by carrying on the business of a payment service provider without a licence as referred to in Article 2:3a of the Dutch Financial Supervision Act,



while he, the defendant, is/was/has been the leader and/or founder and/or director of the aforementioned organisation;;



acquittal



- finds it not proven that the defendant committed the offence charged under count 10 and acquits him thereof;



statement of proven facts





finds it proven that the defendant committed the offences charged under counts 1 to 9 inclusive, as described above;


finds it not proven what was charged against the defendant under counts 1 to 9 inclusive beyond or otherwise than as proven and acquits him thereof;





criminality of the facts





declares the proven facts punishable;


declares that the proven facts constitute the following criminal offences:






count 1:

the offence of: participating as leader in an organisation whose purpose is to commit offences;





counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9,
in each case
:




the offence of: people smuggling, while the offence is committed by a person who has made an occupation or habit of it and while the offence is committed in association by several persons and while danger to the life of another is to be feared as a result;





counts 4, 6,
in each case
:

the offence of: extortion, while the offence is committed by two or more persons acting together;






criminal liability of the defendant



- declares the defendant criminally liable for the offences proven under counts 1 to 9 inclusive;




sentence





sentences the defendant to a term of imprisonment of 20 (twenty) years;


orders that the time spent by the defendant in police custody and pre-trial detention before the execution of this judgment shall be fully deducted when the term of imprisonment is enforced;





compensation





determines that the injured party [witness 3] [witness 3] (witness number [number 3]) is wholly inadmissible in the claim, and that the injured party may bring the claim only before the civil court;


determines that the injured party and the defendant shall each bear their own costs;





determines that the injured party [witness 4] [witness 4] (witness number [number 4]) is wholly inadmissible in the claim, and that the injured party may bring the claim only before the civil court;


determines that the injured party and the defendant shall each bear their own costs;





allows the claim of the injured party [witness 1] [witness 1] (witness number [number 1]) up to an amount of €12,506.02 (twelve thousand five hundred and six euros and two euro cents), consisting of €2,006.02 in material damage and €10,500.00 in non-material damage;


orders the defendant to pay the injured party [witness 1] an amount of €12,506.02, plus statutory interest from 29 October 2025;


also orders the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by the injured party, assessed to date at nil, as well as the costs of service of this judgment, the costs still to be incurred in connection with the execution of this judgment and the costs relating to recovery;


imposes the measure that the defendant is obliged, in respect of the proven offence, to pay to the State of the Netherlands an amount of €12,506.02 (twelve thousand five hundred and six euros and two euro cents), plus statutory interest from 29 October 2025, for the benefit of the injured party, and determines that, if full recovery of the amount due proves impossible, detention for a period of 97 days may be applied. Enforcement of detention does not affect the payment obligation;


determines that if the defendant has fulfilled his obligation to pay the State of the Netherlands the said amount, the defendant’s obligation to pay that amount to the injured party lapses, and conversely, if the defendant has paid the amount due to the injured party, the obligation to pay that amount to the State of the Netherlands lapses;



- determines that the injured party [witness 1] is inadmissible in the claim in respect of the claimed future damage of €10,000.00, and that the injured party may bring the claim for that part only before the civil court;



allows the claim of the injured party [witness 2] [witness 2] (witness number [number 2]) up to an amount of €17,647.31 (seventeen thousand six hundred and forty-seven euros and thirty-one euro cents), consisting of €3,647.31 in material damage and €14,000.00 in non-material damage);


orders the defendant to pay the injured party [witness 2] an amount of €17,647.31, plus statutory interest from 29 October 2025;


also orders the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by the injured party, assessed to date at nil, as well as the costs of service of this judgment, the costs still to be incurred in connection with the execution of this judgment and the costs relating to recovery;


imposes the measure that the defendant is obliged, in respect of the proven offence, to pay to the State of the Netherlands an amount of €17,647.31 (seventeen thousand six hundred and forty-seven euros and thirty-one euro cents), plus statutory interest from 29 October 2025, for the benefit of the injured party, and determines that, if full recovery of the amount due proves impossible, detention for a period of 123 days may be applied. Enforcement of detention does not affect the payment obligation;


determines that if the defendant has fulfilled his obligation to pay the State of the Netherlands the said amount, the defendant’s obligation to pay that amount to the injured party lapses, and conversely, if the defendant has paid the amount due to the injured party, the obligation to pay that amount to the State of the Netherlands lapses;


determines that the injured party [witness 2] is inadmissible in the claim in respect of the claimed future damage of €10,000.00, and that the injured party may bring the claim for that part only before the civil court.




This judgment was delivered by M. Melaard, LLM, presiding judge, M.J. A. L. Beljaars, LLM and A.J. de Loor, LLM, judges, in the presence of C. C. van Druten, LLM and K. Drenth, LLM, court clerks, and was pronounced in open court on 27 January 2026.





Reader’s guide

These appendices form part of the judgment and contain a statement of the original indictment and a statement of the indictment after the decisions on the preliminary questions as set out in Chapter 3 of this judgment.





Appendix I the original indictment







Count 1 – criminal organisation

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 January 2015 to 1 July 2018, in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with another or others, or at least alone,
participated in an organisation, consisting of a collaborative association of natural persons, namely co-defendant [co-defendant 1] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 4] [co-defendant 1] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 5] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 6] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 7] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 8] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 9] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 10] and/or
one or more (other) persons (whose identity has remained unknown),



which organisation had as its purpose the commission of offences, namely in each case the commission of



people smuggling, as referred to in Article 197a(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of the Dutch Criminal Code, in relation to migrants from Africa via the Mediterranean Sea Route from Libya to Europe, while the defendant(s) make(s) an occupation and/or habit thereof and/or resulting in serious bodily injury or while danger to life is to be feared as a result and/or resulting in death, and/or


hostage-taking, as referred to in Article 282 and/or 282a of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely unlawfully depriving one or more persons of their liberty and/or keeping them deprived of their liberty, whether or not with the purpose of forcing the family of that/those person/persons to pay for the crossing to Europe, and/or


extortion, as referred to in Article 317 of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely forcing the family of the aforementioned person/persons, or at least another person, by violence or threat of violence, to surrender an amount of money, with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself or another, and/or


violent offences, as referred to in Article 285 and/or Article 300 and/or Article 302 and/or Article 287 of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely threatening with deadly and/or other violence and/or assault(s), whether or not resulting in serious bodily injury and/or death, and/or manslaughter, committed against the aforementioned person/persons, and/or


sexual violent offences, as referred to in Article 242 and/or 246 of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely rape and/or indecent assault of one or more migrants, and/or


money laundering, as referred to in Articles 420bis and 420ter of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely collecting large amounts of money in cash from family members in the Netherlands and transferring, moving, converting, acquiring, possessing, concealing and disguising those proceeds and thereby securing them, and/or


hawala (underground) banking by carrying on the business of a payment service provider without a licence as referred to in Article 2:3a of the Dutch Financial Supervision Act,


while he, the defendant, is/was/has been the leader and/or founder and/or director of the aforementioned organisation;



Count 2 – CASE FILE 003 / arrival 12/12/2017 Augusta

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 August 2017 to 12 December 2017, or at least the period from 1 August 2017 to 9 March 2022,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)
assisted another person or other persons, namely (in any event) the persons using the following personal details (including a child/minor),



[witness 11] (f), born on [date of birth] 1984 (witness [number 8]), and/or


[witness 12] (m), born on [date of birth] 1982 (witness [number 9]), and/or


[witness 2] (m), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 10]), and/or one or more (other) persons whose identity has remained unknown,


in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or


for gain, assisted in obtaining residence in (paragraph 2)



Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by, whether or not through an intermediary,



accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the




aforementioned person/persons,
while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)



the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or (a) stick(s), and/or


there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care at the camp, and/or


(injury)


the aforementioned [witness 2] was left with scars on his legs as a result of the assaults, and/or


the aforementioned [witness 2] was paralysed in his right hand for some time as a result of the assaults, and/or


(sea journey)


the sea journey takes place in (one or more) small wooden and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are leaking or start leaking during the crossing, and/or


no life jackets are provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board is (are) at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


the persons on board have insufficient sailing and/or swimming skills,


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);




Count 3 – CASE FILE 004 / arrival 28/12/2017 Augusta

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 May 2017 to 28 December 2017, or at least in the period from 1 May 2017 to 31 January 2022,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)
assisted another person or other persons, namely (in any event) the persons using the following personal details (including a child/minor),



[witness 5] (m), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 5]), and/or


[witness 13] (m), born on [date of birth] 1991 (witness [number 12]) and/or


[witness 9] (m), born on [date of birth] 1987 (witness [number 13]), and/or at least one or more (other) persons whose identity has remained unknown,


in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or


for gain, assisted in obtaining residence in (paragraph 2)



Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by, whether or not through an intermediary,



accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast




of Libya, and/or



providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)



the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or electricity and/or a whip and/or other objects, and/or


there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities at the camp, and/or


(sea journey)


the sea journey takes place in (one or more) small wooden and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are leaking and/or start leaking and/or fill with water during the crossing, and/or


no life jackets are provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board is (are) at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


there is no or little food and/or drinking water during the crossing, and/or


the persons on board have insufficient sailing and/or swimming skills, and/or


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);




Count 4 – CASE FILE 004 / extortion [witness 6]

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 May 2017 to 28 December 2017, in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone,
with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself and/or another by violence and/or threat of violence
forced [witness 5] and/or his sister [witness 6] and/or one or more (other) family members and/or friends and/or acquaintances of that [witness 5] to surrender a total of 9,000 US dollars, or at least 8,000 US dollars, or at least (twice) 4,000 US dollars, or at least one or more sums of money, in any event any property, which belonged wholly or in part to that [witness 6] and/or one or more (other) family members and/or friends and/or acquaintances, in any event to a third party,
by



having that [witness 5] call his sister [witness 6], living in the Netherlands, and/or (other) family members from Libya, and/or


beating and/or torturing and/or assaulting that [witness 5] during that/those telephone conversation(s), whereby that [witness 5] screamed in pain and/or fear, and/or


whereby that [witness 5] screamed, and/or


threatening that I with death if his family and/or friends and/or acquaintances did not pay one or more sums of money (quickly enough) or at all;





Count 5 – CASE FILE 008 / arrival 24-04-2018 Messina

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 July 2017 to 24 April 2018, or at least in or around the period from 1 July 2017 to 21 July 2021,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)
assisted another person or other persons, namely (in any event) the persons using the following personal details (including a child/minor),
l . [witness 14] (f), born on [date of birth] 2000 (witness [number 14]), and/or


2. [ [witness 7] (m), born on [date of birth] 1994 (witness [number 7]), and/or
2. [ [witness 13] (m), born on [date of birth] 1994 (witness [number 15]), and/or
2. [ [witness 12] (m), born on [date of birth] 1990 (witness [number 16]), and/or
2. [ [witness 4] (f), born on [date of birth] 1993 (witness [number 4]) and/or
2. [ [witness 3] (m), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 3]), and/or at least one or more (other) persons whose identity has remained unknown,
2. [ in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or
2. [ for gain, assisted in obtaining residence in (paragraph 2) Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000,


supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by,
whether or not through an intermediary,



accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)



the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily (serious) assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or other objects, and/or


there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities at the camp, and/or


(injury)


the aforementioned [witness 11] was left with scars on his hands and/or upper legs as a result of the assaults, and/or


the aforementioned [witness 4] sustained open wounds and/or peeled skin as a result of the assaults, and/or


(sea journey)


the sea journey takes place in (one or more) rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s)




are suitable for, and/or



the boat(s) used are leaking and/or start leaking and/or fill with water during the crossing, and/or


no or at least insufficient life jackets are provided, or at least life jackets of insufficient quality are provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board is (are) at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


there is no food and/or drinking water during the crossing, and/or


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);




Count 6 – CASE FILE 005 / extortion [name 25]

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 May 2017 to 24 April 2018, in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone,
with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself and/or another,
by violence and/or threat of violence, forced [name 25] and/or his brother and/or one or more (other) family members and/or friends and/or acquaintances of that [name 25] to surrender (a total of) 1,700.00, or at least one or more sums of money, in any event any property, which belonged wholly or in part to that [name 25] and/or one or more (other) family members and/or friends and/or acquaintances, in any event to a third party,
by



having that [name 25] call his brother and/or (other) family members living in the Netherlands from Libya, and/or


beating and/or torturing and/or assaulting that [name 25] during that/those telephone conversation(s), whereby that [name 25] screamed in pain and/or fear, and/or


whereby that [name 25] screamed, and/or


threatening that [name 25] with death if his family and/or friends and/or acquaintances did not pay one or more sums of money (quickly enough);





See, among other things:

- official reports of interview of witness [name 25] (appendices 58 and 59 to the comparative official report)
(Article 312(2), opening words/under 2, Dutch Criminal Code, Article 317(1) Dutch Criminal Code, Article 317(3) Dutch Criminal Code)




Count 7 – CASE FILE 001 / arrival 01-08-2015 Lampedusa

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from April 2015 to 1 August 2015, or at least the period from April 2015 to 27 January 2022,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)
assisted another person or other persons, namely (in any event) the persons using the following personal details,



[witness 12] (f), born on [date of birth] 1992 (witness [number 19]), and/or


[witness 9] (m), born on [date of birth] 1991 (witness [number 20]), and/or


[witness 15] (m), born on [date of birth] 1989 (witness [number 21]), and/or


[witness 13] (m), born on [date of birth] 1987 (witness [number 22]), and/or


[witness 1] (m), born on [date of birth] 1987 (witness [number 1]), and/or


[witness 2] (m), born on [date of birth] 1987 (official report no. 3627), and/or one or more (other) persons whose identity has remained unknown,


in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or



- for gain, assisted in obtaining residence in (paragraph 2) Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or provided the aforementioned person/persons, (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by,
whether or not through an intermediary,


accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)



the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or sticks and/or other (sharp) objects,


there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care at the camp, and/or


(injury)
- the aforementioned [witness 13] sustained a bleeding head wound as a result of the assaults and/or permanent scars on his occiput and/or calf, and/or
(sea journey)


the sea journey takes place in (one or more) small wooden and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are leaking or start leaking during the crossing, and/or


no life jackets are provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board is (are) at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


the persons on board have insufficient sailing and/or swimming skills, and/or


there is no food and/or drinking water on the boats, and/or


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);




Count 8 – CASE FILE 006 / arrival 04-02-2018 Messina

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from January 2017 to 4 February 2018, or at least in the period from January 2017 to 12 April 2021,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)
assisted another person or other persons, namely (in any event) the minor person using the following personal details,




[witness 16] (f), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 23]), and/or at least one or more (other) persons whose identity has remained unknown,


in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or


for gain, assisted in obtaining residence in (paragraph 2) Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000,



supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by,
whether or not through an intermediary,



accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)



the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily (serious) assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or sticks and/or other objects, and/or


there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities at the camp, and/or


(sea journey)


the sea journey takes place in (one or more) small wooden and/or fibreglass and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are leaking and/or start leaking and/or fill with water during the crossing, and/or


no or at least insufficient life jackets are provided, or at least life jackets of insufficient quality are provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board is (are) at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


the persons on board have insufficient sailing and/or swimming skills, and/or


there is no food and/or drinking water during the crossing, and/or


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);




Count 9 – CASE FILE 007 / arrival 12-03-2018 Pozzallo

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from November 2016 to 12 March 2018, or at least in the period from November 2016 to 12 January 2022,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)



assisted another person or other persons, namely (in any event) the persons using the following personal details (including one or more children/minors ([witness 1])),



[witness 8] (m), born on [date of birth] 2001 (witness [number 28]), and/or


[witness 9] (m), born on [date of birth] 2001 (witness [number 29]), and/or


[witness 2] (m), born on [date of birth] 2001 (witness [number 27]), and/or


[witness 1] (f), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 30]), and/or


[witness 15] (m), born on [date of birth] 1996 (witness [number 26]), and/or


[witness 8] (m), born on [date of birth] 2003 (witness [number 31]), and/or


[witness 8] (m), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 32]), and/or at least one or more (other) persons whose identity has remained unknown,


in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or


for gain, assisted in obtaining residence in (paragraph 2) Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000,



supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by,
whether or not through an intermediary,



accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)

- the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily (serious) assaults, namely by (among other things):
x. beating one or more migrants, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses, in which there may or may not be a piece of metal in the (water/garden) hose, and/or other objects, and/or
x. dripping molten plastic over the bare back of a person named S, and/or
x. hanging the aforementioned [witness 13] upside down with his hands on his back and legs tied together and/or while he was beaten whether or not with a stick and/or doused with water, and/or
- there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities at the camp, and/or
(injury)
- the aforementioned [witness 13] was left with scars on his arms and/or legs as a result of the assaults, and/or
(sea journey)


the sea journey takes place in (one or more) small wooden and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are suitable for, and/or





the boat(s) used are leaking and/or start leaking and/or fill with water during the crossing, and/or


no or at least insufficient life jackets are provided, or at least life jackets of insufficient quality are provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board is (are) at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


there is no food and/or drinking water during the crossing, and/or


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);




Count 10 CASE FILE 009 / arrival 14 May 2018 Augusta

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from January 2017 to 14 May 2018, or at least in the period from January 2017 to 19 November 2020,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)
assisted another person or other persons, namely (in any event) the persons using the following personal details (including one or more children/minors),



[witness 7] (m), born on [date of birth] 1991 (witness [number 33]), and/or


[witness 11] (f), born on [date of birth] 2001 (witness), and/or


[witness 3] (m), born on [date of birth] 1999 (witness [number 34]), and/or


[witness 8] (m), born on [date of birth] 1996 (witness [number 35]), and/or


[witness 12] (f), born on [date of birth] 1999 (witness [number 36]), and/or at least one or more (other) persons whose identity has remained unknown,


in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or


for gain, assisted in obtaining residence in (paragraph 2) Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000,



supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by, whether or not through an intermediary,



accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boats, whether or not with one or more outboard motors and/or captains/helmsmen/guides, and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)

- the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily (serious) assaults, namely by (among other things):
x. beating one or more migrants, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses, in which there may or may not be a piece of metal in the (water/garden) hose, and/or other objects, and/or
- there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities at the camp, and/or
(injury)



the aforementioned [witness 7] was left with permanent injury to his hand(s) as a result of the assaults, and/or


the aforementioned [witness 8] sustained open wounds and/or peeled skin as a result of the assaults, and/or


(sea journey)


the sea journey takes place in (one or more) small rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are leaking and/or start leaking and/or fill with water during the crossing, and/or


insufficient life jackets are provided, or at least life jackets of insufficient quality are provided, and/or



and/or
while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);





Count 11 CASE FILE 013 / financial

that he, in or around the period from 1 January 2015 to 1 July 2018 in the Netherlands and in Libya and/or Sudan and/or Eritrea,
together and in association with his co-perpetrator(s), or at least alone, (in each case) made a habit of committing money laundering,
or at least committed money laundering, in that he, the defendant, (in each case) acquired, possessed, transferred and/or converted (an) object(s), namely

- one or more cash amounts as described in case file 13 / page 471 / table 2 payments for migrants to [defendant] appearing from ZD-001 to ZD-012 inclusive,

totalling approximately USD 76,600, or at least any amount of money, or at least any property, and/or
made use of (an) object(s), namely one or more cash amounts as described in case file 13 / page 471 / table 2 payments for migrants to [defendant] appearing from ZD-001 to ZD-012 inclusive, totalling approximately USD 76,600, and/or
concealed and/or disguised the true nature and/or origin and/or location and/or disposal and/or movement, and/or
concealed and/or disguised who the entitled person was and/or who had possession of this/these object(s), while he/they knew that this/these object(s) was/were derived, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from any offence.





in the alternative culpable money laundering






that he, in or around the period from 1 January 2015 to 1 July 2018 in the Netherlands and in Libya and/or Sudan and/or Eritrea,
together and in association with his co-perpetrator(s), or at least alone,
(in each case) committed culpable money laundering, in that he, the defendant, (in each case) acquired, possessed, transferred and/or converted (an) object(s), namely:

- one or more cash amounts as described in case file 13 / page 471 / table 2 payments for migrants to [defendant] appearing from ZD-001 to ZD-012 inclusive, totalling USD 76,600, or at least any amount of money, or at least any property, and/or made use of (an) object(s), namely one or more cash amounts as described in case file 13 / page 471 / table 2 payments for migrants to [defendant] appearing


from ZD-001 to ZD-012 inclusive, totalling approximately USD 76,600,
and/or
concealed and/or disguised the true nature and/or origin and/or location and/or disposal and/or movement, and/or
concealed and/or disguised who the entitled person was and/or who had possession of this/these object(s), while he reasonably should have suspected that this/these object(s) was/were derived, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from any offence.









Appendix II the indictment after the decisions on the preliminary questions







Count 1 – criminal organisation

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 January 2015 to 1 July 2018, in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with another or others, or at least alone,
participated in an organisation, consisting of a collaborative association of natural persons, namely co-defendant [co-defendant 1] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 4] [co-defendant 1] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 5] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 6] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 7] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 8] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 9] and/or co-defendant [co-defendant 10] and/or
one or more (other) persons (whose identity has remained unknown),
which organisation had as its purpose the commission of offences, namely in each case the commission of



people smuggling, as referred to in Article 197a(1), (4), (5) and (6) of the Dutch Criminal Code, in relation to migrants from Africa via the Mediterranean Sea Route from Libya to Europe, while the defendant(s) make(s) an occupation and/or habit thereof and/or resulting in serious bodily injury or while danger to life is to be feared as a result and/or resulting in death, and/or


extortion, as referred to in Article 317 of the Dutch Criminal Code, namely forcing the family of the aforementioned person/persons, or at least another person, by violence or threat of violence, to surrender an amount of money, with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself or another,


while he, the defendant, is/was/has been the leader and/or founder and/or director of the aforementioned organisation;





Count 2 – CASE FILE 003 / arrival 12/12/2017 Augusta

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 August 2017 to 12 December 2017, or at least the period from 1 August 2017 to 9 March 2022,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)
assisted another person or other persons, namely the persons using the following personal details (including a child/minor),



[witness 11] (f), born on [date of birth] 1984 (witness [number 8]), and/or


[witness 12] (m), born on [date of birth] 1982 (witness [number 9]), and/or


[witness 2] (m), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 10]), and/or


in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or


Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or


provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by, whether or not through an intermediary,



accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)



the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or (a) stick(s), and/or


there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care at the camp, and/or


(injury)


the aforementioned [witness 2] was left with scars on his legs as a result of the assaults, and/or


the aforementioned [witness 2] was paralysed in his right hand for some time as a result of the assaults, and/or


(sea journey)


the sea journey takes place in (one or more) small wooden and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are leaking or start leaking during the crossing, and/or


no life jackets are provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board is (are) at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


the persons on board have insufficient sailing and/or swimming skills,


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);




Count 3 – CASE FILE 004 / arrival 28/12/2017 Augusta

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 May 2017 to 28 December 2017, or at least in the period from 1 May 2017 to 31 January 2022,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)
assisted another person or other persons, namely the persons using the following personal details (including a child/minor),



[witness 5] (m), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 5]), and/or


[witness 13] (m), born on [date of birth] 1991 (witness [number 12]) and/or


[witness 9] (m), born on [date of birth] 1987 (witness [number 13]), and/or


- in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or
Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway


and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by, whether or not through an intermediary,



accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)



the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or electricity and/or a whip and/or other objects, and/or


there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities at the camp, and/or


(sea journey)


the sea journey takes place in (one or more) small wooden and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are leaking and/or start leaking and/or fill with water during the crossing, and/or


no life jackets are provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board is (are) at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


there is no or little food and/or drinking water during the crossing, and/or


the persons on board have insufficient sailing and/or swimming skills, and/or


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);




Count 4 – CASE FILE 004 / extortion [witness 6]

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 May 2017 to 28 December 2017, in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone,
with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself and/or another by violence and/or threat of violence
forced [witness 5] and/or his sister [witness 6] and/or one or more (other) family members and/or friends and/or acquaintances of that [witness 5] to surrender a total of 9,000 US dollars, or at least 8,000 US dollars, or at least (twice) 4,000 US dollars, or at least one or more sums of money, in any event any property, which belonged wholly or in part to that [witness 6] and/or one or more (other) family members and/or friends and/or acquaintances, in any event to a third party,
by

- having that [witness 5] call his sister [witness 6], living in the Netherlands, and/or


(other) family members from Libya, and/or



beating and/or torturing and/or assaulting that [witness 5] during that/those telephone conversation(s), whereby that [witness 5] screamed in pain and/or fear, and/or


whereby that [witness 5] screamed, and/or


threatening that I with death if his family and/or friends and/or acquaintances did not pay one or more sums of money (quickly enough) or at all;






Count 5 – CASE FILE 008 / arrival 24-04-2018 Messina

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 July 2017 to 24 April 2018, or at least in or around the period from 1 July 2017 to 21 July 2021,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)
assisted another person or other persons, namely the persons using the following personal details (including a child/minor),
l . [witness 14] (f), born on [date of birth] 2000 (witness [number 14]), and/or


2. [ [witness 7] (m), born on [date of birth] 1994 (witness [number 7]), and/or
2. [ [witness 13] (m), born on [date of birth] 1994 (witness [number 15]), and/or
2. [ [witness 12] (m), born on [date of birth] 1990 (witness [number 16]), and/or

- in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or

Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000,
supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by, whether or not through an intermediary,



accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)



the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily (serious) assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or other objects, and/or


there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities at the camp, and/or


(injury)


the aforementioned [witness 11] was left with scars on his hands and/or upper legs as a result of the assaults, and/or


the aforementioned [witness 4] sustained open wounds and/or peeled skin as a result of the assaults, and/or


(sea journey)
- the sea journey takes place in (one or more) rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or


drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or



the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are leaking and/or start leaking and/or fill with water during the crossing, and/or


no or at least insufficient life jackets are provided, or at least life jackets of insufficient quality are provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board is (are) at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


there is no food and/or drinking water during the crossing, and/or


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);




Count 6 – CASE FILE 005 / extortion [name 25]

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from 1 May 2017 to 24 April 2018, in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone,
with the intention of unlawfully benefiting himself and/or another,
by violence and/or threat of violence, forced [name 25] and/or his brother and/or one or more (other) family members and/or friends and/or acquaintances of that [name 25] to surrender (a total of) 1,700.00, or at least one or more sums of money, in any event any property, which belonged wholly or in part to that [name 25] and/or one or more (other) family members and/or friends and/or acquaintances, in any event to a third party,
by



having that [name 25] call his brother and/or (other) family members living in the Netherlands from Libya, and/or


beating and/or torturing and/or assaulting that [name 25] during that/those telephone conversation(s), whereby that [name 25] screamed in pain and/or fear, and/or


whereby that [name 25] screamed, and/or


threatening that [name 25] with death if his family and/or friends and/or acquaintances did not pay one or more sums of money (quickly enough);






Count 7 – CASE FILE 001 / arrival 01-08-2015 Lampedusa

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from April 2015 to 1 August 2015, or at least the period from April 2015 to 27 January 2022,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)
assisted another person or other persons, namely the persons using the following personal details,



[witness 12] (f), born on [date of birth] 1992 (witness [number 19]), and/or


[witness 9] (m), born on [date of birth] 1991 (witness [number 20]), and/or


[witness 15] (m), born on [date of birth] 1989 (witness [number 21]), and/or


[witness 13] (m), born on [date of birth] 1987 (witness [number 22]), and/or


[witness 1] (m), born on [date of birth] 1987 (witness [number 1]), and/or


[witness 2] (m), born on [date of birth] 1987 (official report no. 3627), and/or


- in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or

Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose,



by
whether or not through an intermediary,



accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)



the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or sticks and/or other (sharp) objects,


there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care at the camp, and/or


(injury)
- the aforementioned [witness 13] sustained a bleeding head wound as a result of the assaults and/or permanent scars on his occiput and/or calf, and/or
(sea journey)


the sea journey takes place in (one or more) small wooden and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are leaking or start leaking during the crossing, and/or


no life jackets are provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board is (are) at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


the persons on board have insufficient sailing and/or swimming skills, and/or


there is no food and/or drinking water on the boats, and/or


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);




Count 8 – CASE FILE 006 / arrival 04-02-2018 Messina

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from January 2017 to 4 February 2018, or at least in the period from January 2017 to 12 April 2021,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)
assisted another person or other persons, namely the minor person using the following personal details,

1. witness 16] (f), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 23]), and/or
- in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or

Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000,
supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or



provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by,
whether or not through an intermediary,



accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)



the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily (serious) assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and/or sticks and/or other objects, and/or


there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities at the camp, and/or


(sea journey)


the sea journey takes place in (one or more) small wooden and/or fibreglass and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are leaking and/or start leaking and/or fill with water during the crossing, and/or


no or at least insufficient life jackets are provided, or at least life jackets of insufficient quality are provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board is (are) at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


the persons on board have insufficient sailing and/or swimming skills, and/or


there is no food and/or drinking water during the crossing, and/or


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);




Count 9 – CASE FILE 007 / arrival 12-03-2018 Pozzallo

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from November 2016 to 12 March 2018, or at least in the period from November 2016 to 12 January 2022,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)
assisted another person or other persons, namely the persons using the following personal details (including one or more children/minors),



[witness 8] (m), born on [date of birth] 2001 (witness [number 28]), and/or


[witness 9] (m), born on [date of birth] 2001 (witness [number 29]), and/or


[witness 2] (m), born on [date of birth] 2001 (witness [number 27]), and/or


[witness 1] (f), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 30]), and/or


[witness 15] (m), born on [date of birth] 1996 (witness [number 26]), and/or


[witness 8] (m), born on [date of birth] 2003 (witness [number 31]), and/or


[witness 8] (m), born on [date of birth] 2002 (witness [number 32]), and/or



- in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or

Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000,
supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by,
whether or not through an intermediary,



accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boat(s), whether or not with (one or more) outboard motor(s) and/or captain(s)/helmsman(men)/guide(s), and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)

- the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily (serious) assaults, namely by (among other things):
x. beating one or more migrants, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses, in which there may or may not be a piece of metal in the (water/garden) hose, and/or other objects, and/or
x. dripping molten plastic over the bare back of a person named S, and/or
x. hanging the aforementioned [witness 13] upside down with his hands on his back and legs tied together and/or while he was beaten whether or not with a stick and/or doused with water, and/or
- there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities at the camp, and/or
(injury)
- the aforementioned [witness 13] was left with scars on his arms and/or legs as a result of the assaults, and/or
(sea journey)


the sea journey takes place in (one or more) small wooden and/or rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are leaking and/or start leaking and/or fill with water during the crossing, and/or


no or at least insufficient life jackets are provided, or at least life jackets of insufficient quality are provided, and/or


the boat(s) with persons on board is (are) at some point left at sea without a captain/helmsman/guide and/or outboard motor(s), and/or


there is no food and/or drinking water during the crossing, and/or


while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4);



Count 10 CASE FILE 009 / arrival 14 May 2018 Augusta

that he, at (one or more) times in or around the period from January 2017 to 14 May 2018, or at least in the period from January 2017 to 19 November 2020,
in the Netherlands and in Italy and in Libya,
together and in association with one or more others, or at least alone, (in each case)
assisted another person or other persons, namely the persons using the following personal details (including one or more children/minors),



[witness 7] (m), born on [date of birth] 1991 (witness [number 33]), and/or


[witness 11] (f), born on [date of birth] 2001 (witness), and/or


[witness 3] (m), born on [date of birth] 1999 (witness [number 34]), and/or


[witness 8] (m), born on [date of birth] 1996 (witness [number 35]), and/or


[witness 12] (f), born on [date of birth] 1999 (witness [number 36]), and/or


- in obtaining entry into or transit through (paragraph 1), and/or

Italy and/or the Netherlands and/or another Member State of the European Union and/or Iceland and/or Norway and/or a state that has acceded to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000,
supplementing the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, concluded in New York on 15 November 2000, namely Libya, and/or
provided the aforementioned person/persons (in each case) with an opportunity, means or information for that purpose, by, whether or not through an intermediary,



accompanying and/or travelling with the aforementioned person/persons during the journey, and/or


transporting (or having them transported) to and/or accompanying them to and/or gathering them at a place/camp on or near the coast of Libya, and/or


providing them with (one or more) boats, whether or not with one or more outboard motors and/or captains/helmsmen/guides, and/or


transporting them (or having them transported) by boat from Libya to Italy, and/or


giving instructions (or having instructions given) about the travel sum to be paid and/or about the method of payment thereof, or at least any other act aimed at organising the journey and/or transport of the aforementioned person/persons,



while he, the defendant, and/or his co-defendant(s) knew or had serious reasons to suspect that that entry and/or transit was, in each case, unlawful, and/or
while, as a result of this offence, (in each case) danger to the life of the aforementioned person/persons was to be feared and/or serious bodily injury resulted (paragraph 5), because
(stay at the camp)

- the stay in a camp of the defendant is accompanied by many and/or daily (serious) assaults, namely by (among other things):
x. beating one or more migrants, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses, in which there may or may not be a piece of metal in the (water/garden) hose, and/or other objects, and/or
- there is insufficient food and/or clean drinking water/drink and/or medical care and/or sanitary facilities at the camp, and/or
(injury)


the aforementioned [witness 7] was left with permanent injury to his hand(s) as a result of the assaults, and/or


the aforementioned [witness 8] sustained open wounds and/or peeled skin as a result of the assaults, and/or


(sea journey)


the sea journey takes place in (one or more) small rubber boat(s) via the Mediterranean Sea Route, of which it is generally known that this is a dangerous smuggling route with (many) (fatal) accidents and/or drownings, or at least a high risk thereof, and/or


the boat(s) used are not suitable for crossing the Mediterranean Sea, and/or


the boat(s) used are filled/loaded with more people than the boat(s) are suitable for, and/or


the boat(s) used are leaking and/or start leaking and/or fill with water during the crossing, and/or



- insufficient life jackets are provided, or at least life jackets of insufficient quality are provided, and/or

and/or
while he, the defendant, has (or has not) made an occupation or habit of committing this offence (paragraph 4).







1. Where reference is made below to case file pages, these are pages from the file of investigation
27Pearce with investigation number 27FBH170002, drawn up by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee, divided among various (E-)folders in which the documents of the file are located. Unless otherwise stated below, reference is always made to pages of an official report drawn up in the statutory form by persons authorised to do so.
2 PHR (Advocate General’s opinion) 18 April 2023, ECLI:NL:PHR:2023:413 (opinion [name 26]) and HR (Supreme Court) 2 February 2010,
ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BK6328, NJ (Nederlandse Jurisprudentie) 2010/89 and HR 27 October 1998, ECLI:NL:HR:1998:ZD1413, NJ 1999/221.
3 PHR 27 February 2024, ECLI:NL:PHR:2024:261 (opinion [name 27]) and PHR 18 April 2023,
ECLI:NL:PHR:2023:413 (opinion [name 26]) and HR 7 May 1996, ECLI:NL:HR:1996:AB9821, NJ 1997/7 and HR 25 November 1997, ECLI:NL:HR:1997:ZD0868, NJ 1998/261.
4 Parliamentary Papers II 2003/04, 29291, no. 3, pages 6 and 7.
5 See Chapter 5.4.2. for the further elaboration of the statements of the migrants.
6 The official report of the interview of witness 79 by the examining magistrate dated 23 October 2025, page
10.
7 Folder E.13, document 7, page 6430.
8 The official report of the interview of witness 78 by the examining magistrate dated 15 May 2024, page 8.
9 These are the witnesses [witnesses].
10 The official report of the interview of witness 45 by the examining magistrate dated 20 March 2024, pages 8
and 9.
11 Folder E .08, document 9, pages 4079 and 4080.
12 Folder E .11, document 13, pages 5495 and 5496.
13 Official report of the interview of witness [number 17], official report number 202311080930.27288990.GET,
pages 2, 4.
14 Parliamentary Papers II 2022/23, 36414, no. 3.
15 Parliamentary Papers II 2012/13, 33572, no. 3, pages 6 and 7.
16 HR 14 November 2023, ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1559, para. 2.5.
17 Folder E .48, document 24, page 21207 and folder E .29, document 15 (AMB-486A), pages 1 to 3 and
AMB-486 (appendix to folder E .29, document 15 pages 9 to 16).
18 Folder E .24, document 5, page 11517.
19 Folder E .48, document 15, pages 21024 to 21026.
20 Folder E .23, document 4, pages 11013 to 11014 and folder E .23, document 6 pages 11065 to 11070
and folder E .23, document 7, page 11182.
21 Folder E .33, document 1, pages 15571 to 15576.
22 Folder E .33, document 1, page 15580.
23 Folder E .26, document 2, page 12326.
24 Folder E .35, document 5, including appendices.
25 Folder E .26, document 2, pages 12325 to 12334.
26 Folder E .35, document 5, pages 16195 to 16196.

27 Folder E .24, document 5, pages 11486 to 11562 and folder E .29, document 3, pages 13670 to
13688.
28 Folder E .24, document 5, pages 11486 to 11562 and folder E .29, document 3, pages 13670 to
13688.
29 Folder E .32, document 20, page 15148.
30 Folder E .36, document 14, page 16756.
31 Under number S/201 8/812.
32 Folder E .28, document 24, pages 13656 to 13660.
33 Folder E .31, document 3, pages 14697 to 14721 and folder E .31, document 4, pages 14722 to
14735.
34 Folder E .33, document 6, pages 15678 to 15690 and folder E .31, document 45 pages 14736 to
14754.
35 Folder E .31, document 20, page 15149.
36 Folder E .36, document 2, page 16572.
37 HR 2 February 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:3474, NJ 2015/39 (overview judgment).
38 Folder E.46, document 7, pages 20292 to 20298.
39 Folder E .33, document 10, page 15716.
40 Non-governmental organisation.
41 Folder E .33, document 10, pages 15714, 15715.
42 Folder E .32, document 11, pages 15102 to 15106.
43 Folder E .15, document 3, page 7347.
44 Folder E .18, document 7, pages 8910, 8919.
45 Folder E .14, document 14, pages 7123 and 7127.
46 Folder E .14, document 14, page 7114.
47 Folder E .14, document 14, pages 7117, 7118, 7120.
48 Folder E .14, document 14, page 7135.
49 Folder E .14, document 14, page 7121.
50 Folder E .14, document 14, page 7128.
51 Where the case file refers to dollars, the District Court understands this to refer to United States dollars
(USD).
52 Folder E .14, document 14, pages 7123, 7124.
53 Folder E .14, document 14, page 7126.
54 Folder E .14, document 14, pages 7123, 7124.
55 Folder E .14, document 14, pages 7127, 7128.
56 Folder E .14, document 14, pages 7133, 7136.
57 Folder E .14, document 14, page 7137.
58 Folder E .14, document 14, pages 7138, 7139.
59 Folder E .14, document 14, page 7140.
60 Folder E .15, document 2, page 7323.
61 Folder E .15, document 2, page 7323 and folder E .15, document 3, page 7341.
62 Folder E .32, document 11, page 15104.
63 Folder E .15, document 2, pages 7324, 7325, 7327.
64 Folder E .15, document 3, pages 7337, 7341.
65 Folder E .15, document 3, page 7336.

66 Folder E .15, document 2, page 7324 and folder E .15, document 3, page 7336.
67 Folder E .15, document 2, pages 7328, 7329.
68 Folder E .15, document 3, pages 7342, 7343.
69 Folder E .18, document 6, page 8876.
70 Folder E .32, document 11, page 15104.
71 Folder E .18, document 6, page 8876.
72 Folder E .18, document 6, pages 8880 to 8882.
73 Folder E .18, document 6, pages 8881, 8882.
74 Folder E .18, document 6, page 8881.
75 Folder E .18, document 6, page 8883.
76 Folder E .18, document 7, page 8961.
77 Folder E .18, document 6, page 8884.
78 Folder E .18, document 7, pages 8955, 8957.
79 Folder E .18, document 7, pages 8957, 8958.
80 Folder E .18, document 6, pages 8880, 8881.
81 Folder E .18, document 7, page 8957.
82 Folder E .18, document 7, page 8960.
83 Folder E .18, document 7, page 8961.
84 Folder E .18, document 7, page 8962.
85 Folder E .18, document 7, pages 8962, 8963.
86 Folder E .18, document 7, pages 8963, 8964.
87 Folder E .18, document 7, page 8965.
88 Folder E .18, document 12, page 9051.
89 It appears from public sources that the exchange rate (as of 1 August 2018) from the Eritrean nakfa to USD
was 0.067. Converted at that exchange rate, the amount transferred would be $5,025.00.
90 Folder E .18, document 12, pages 9045, 9046, 9050.
91 Converted at that exchange rate, the amount transferred would be $11,390.00 or
$12,060.00.
92 Folder E .18, document 12, pages 9051, 9052.
93 Folder E .30, document 19, pages 14537 to 14569.
94 Folder E .30, document 19, page 14535.
95 Folder E .30, document 19, pages 14534 to 14536 and folder E .33, document 9, pages 15709 to
15711 and folder E .15.14, page 7638 and folder E .17.02, page 8381.
96 The official report of the interview of the witness on 20 March 2024, page 7 and folder E .12, page 6147.
97 Folder E .30, document 9, pages 14345 to 14349.
98 Folder E .08, document 8, pages 4037, 4084 and 4085.
99 Folder E .15, document 17, pages 7772, 7792, 7793.

100 Folder E .17, document 5, pages 8439, 8440 and 8470.
101 Folder E .08, document 4, page 3998.
102 Folder E .08, document 4, page 3992.
103 The written document: GBA-V registration, page 5.
104 Folder E .08, document 4, pages 3992 to 3996, 3998.
105 Folder E .08, document 5, pages 4011 to 4013, 4018, 4019, 4025, 4026, 4028 and 4030.



106 Folder E .08, document 5, pages 4026, 4027, 4034, 4036.
107 Folder E .08, document 4, page 3996.
108 Folder E .08, document 5, pages 4037 to 4039.
109 Folder E .08, document 5, pages 4042 to 4046, 4050.
110 Folder E .08, document 4, pages 3998, 3999.
111 The official report of the interview of witness [number 37] by the examining magistrate dated 20 March 2024,
pages 8 and 9.
112 Folder E .08, document 8, pages 4076, 4077 and 4079.
113 Folder E .08, document 8, pages 4079, 4080 and 4081.
114 Folder E .15, document 14, page 7642.
115 The official report of the interview of the witness on 17 May 2024, pages 3, 6.
116 Folder E .15, document 14, pages 7645, 7646 and 7648.
117 Folder E .15, document 14, pages 7645 to 7648.
118 Folder E .15, document 14, pages 7646 and 7647.
119 Folder E .15, document 14, pages 7652 to 7654.
120 Folder E .15, document 14, pages 7654 to 7655.
121 Folder E .15, document 14, page 7656.
122 Folder E .15, document 16, page 7703.
123 Folder E .15, document 16, pages 7705, 7708.
124 Folder E .15, document 16, pages 7709, 7710, 7712, 7713.
125 Folder E .15, document 16, page 7714.
126 Folder E .17, document 3, page 8417.
127 The official report of the interview of the witness on 23 October 2024, page 3.
128 Folder E .17, document 2, pages 8391, 8392, 8395, 8396.
129 Folder E .17, document 2, pages 8399, 8400.
130 Folder E .17, document 2, pages 8396 to 8398, 8405.
131 Folder E .17, document 3, page 8423.
132 Folder E .17, document 2, pages 8404, 8405, 8406.
133 Folder E .17, document 2, pages 8396, 8398 to 8402.
134 Folder E .17, document 2, pages 8404, 8406.
135 Folder E .17, document 3, pages 8425, 8426.
136 Folder E .17, document 3, pages 8428 to 8430.
137 Folder E .17, document 3, pages 8430 to 8433.
138 Folder E .32, document 9, page 15072.
139 Folder E .32, document 9, pages 15072 to 15073.
140 Folder E .31, document 13, pages 14819 to 14823.
141 Folder E .09, document 5, pages 4482 and 4485.
142 Official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 21 March 2024, page 2.
143 Folder E .09, document 4, pages 4470 to 4471 and folder E .09, document 5, page 4485 and folder E .09,
document 7, page 4519.
144 Folder E .09, document 7, page 4518.
145 Folder E .09, document 5, pages 4484 to 4485.
146 Folder E .09, document 5, page 4483.



147 Folder E .09, document 7, page 4522.
148 Folder E .09, document 5, pages 4487 to 4488.
149 Folder E .09, document 5, pages 4483 to 4484.
150 Folder E .09, document 6, pages 4504 to 4505.
151 Folder E .09, document 7, page 4520.
152 Folder E .09, document 7, page 4528.
153 Folder E .09, document 7, pages 4528 to 4529.
154 Folder E .09, document 7, pages 4530 to 4531.
155 Folder E .11, document 13, pages 5494 and 5496.
156 Folder E .11, document 13, page 5497.
157 Folder E .11, document 13, page 5496.
158 Folder E .11, document 14, page 5520.
159 Folder E .11, document 14, page 5521.
160 Folder E .11, document 14, pages 5506 to 5508 and folder E .11, document 14, page 5513.
161 Folder E .11, document 14, page 5513.
162 Folder E .11, document 14, pages 5514 and 5519.
163 Folder E .11, document 13, page 5496.
164 Folder E .11, document 13, page 5496 and folder E .11, document 14, pages 5521 to 5522.
165 Folder E .11, document 14, pages 5525 to 5526.
166 Folder E .11, document 14, page 5527.
167 Folder E .11, document 13, page 5497 and folder E .11, document 14, page 5528.
168 Folder E .11, document 14, pages 5515 to 5517.
169 Official report of the interview of witness [number 17], document code [code], official report number
202311080930.27288990.GET, pages 2 and 6.
170 Official report of the interview of witness [number 17], document code [code], official report number
202311080930.27288990.GET, pages 3, 4 and 6.
171 Folder E .11, document 7, page 5414.
172 Official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 12 March 2024, page 2.
173 Folder E .11, document 7, pages 5414 to 5415 and page 5420 and page 5423.
174 Folder E .11, document 8, page 5445.
175 Folder E .11, document 7, pages 5416 to 5418.
176 Folder E .11, document 7, pages 5418 to 5419.
177 Folder E .11, document 7, pages 5420 to 5421.
178 Folder E .11, document 7, page 5432.
179 Folder E .11, document 7, page 5431 and pages 5434 to 5436.
180 Folder E .11, document 28, page 5700 and pages 5708 to 5710.
181 Folder E .11, document 28, pages 5708 to 5711.
182 Folder E .10, document 09, page 4932 and folder E .10, document 10, page 4944.
183 Folder E .10, document 09, page 4924.
184 The written document: GBA-V registration, page 11.
185 Folder E .10, document 10, pages 4951 to 4952.
186 Folder E .10, document 10, page 4954.
187 Folder E .10, document 11, pages 4986 to 4987.



188 Folder E .10, document 09, page 4928 and folder E .10, document 10, page 4951 and page 4955 and folder
E .10, document 11, page 4994.
189 Folder E .10, document 10, pages 4953 and 4965.
190 Folder E .10, document 10, pages 4959 to 4963.
191 Folder E .10, document 09, page 4929.
192 Folder E .35, document 10, page 16300.
193 Folder E .36, document 26, pages 16829 to 16830.
194 Folder E .15, document 10, page 7513.
195 Folder E .15, document 8, page 7423 and folder E .15, document 9, page 7437 and official report of
the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 22 January 2025, page 4.
196 Official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 9 January 2025, page 2.
197 Folder E .15, document 9, pages 7431 to 7432 and page 7442.
198 Folder E .15, document 9, pages 7435 to 7536.
199 Folder E .15, document 9, pages 7437 to 7439.
200 Folder E .15, document 10, page 7447.
201 Folder E .15, document 10, pages 7448 to 7452.
202 Folder E .16, document 2, pages 7811 and 7814.
203 Folder E .16, document 2, page 7866.
204 Folder E .16, document 1, page 7806.
205 Folder E .16, document 2, pages 7818 and pages 7822 to 7824.
206 Folder E .16, document 1, page 7807 and folder E .16, document 2, page 7811.
207 Folder E .16, document 2, page 7818.
208 Folder E .16, document 2, pages 7811 and 7819.
209 Folder E .16, document 3, page 7833.
210 Folder E .16, document 2, page 7818.
211 Folder E .16, document 3, pages 7835 to 7837.
212 Folder E .16, document 1, pages 7806 to 7808 and folder E .16, document 2, page 7823.
213 Folder E .16, document 16, pages 8141 and 8145 and folder E16, document 17, page 8124 and official report
of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 22 January 2025, page 4.
214 Folder E .16, document 16, pages 8148 to 8149.
215 Folder E .16, document 16, pages 8146 to 8147.
216 Folder E .16, document 17, pages 8154 to 8155.
217 Folder E .16, document 16, pages 8147 to 8148 and folder E .16, document 17, pages 8154 to 8158.
218 Official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 22 January 2025, page 4.
219 Folder E .16, document 19, page 8226.
220 Folder E .16, document 19, page 8221.
221 Folder E .16, document 20, page 8237.
222 Folder E .16, document 20, page 8244.
223 Folder E .16, document 19, pages 8224 to 8225.
224 Folder E .16, document 20, page 8242.
225 Folder E .16, document 19, pages 8224 to 8225.
226 Folder E .16, document 19, pages 8226 and 8228 and folder E .16, document 20, pages 8245 to 8246.
227 Official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 26 March 2024, page 6.



228 Folder E .17, document 6, pages 8547 and 8551.
229 Folder E .17, document 6, pages 8545 to 8546 and folder E .17, document 7, page 8565.
230 Folder E .17, document 6, page 8558.
231 Folder E .17, document 7, page 8565.
232 Folder E .17, document 6, page 8549.
233 Folder E .17, document 6, pages 8554 to 8556.
234 Folder E .17, document 6, pages 8556 and 8558.
235 Folder E .17, document 7, page 8578.
236 Folder E .17, document 6, page 8553 and pages 8571 to 8572.
237 Folder E .17, document 7, page 8574.
238 Folder E .17, document 7, page 8570.
239 Folder E .17, document 7, pages 8572 to 8573.
240 Folder E .17, document 6, pages 8545 to 8546 and 8548.
241 Official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 28 March 2024, page 7.
242 Official report of the interview of the witness, official report number 3627, document code Verh, pages 3 and 8
Official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 16 September 2025, page 4.
243 The written document: GBA-V registration, pages 24 and 25.
244 Official report of the interview of the witness, official report number 3627, document code Verh, page 6 and
official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 16 September 2025, page 6.
245 Official report of the interview of the witness, official report number 3627, document code Verh, pages 6 to 7
and 9 and official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 16 September 2025, pages 9 and 12.
246 Official report of the interview of the witness, official report number 3627, document code Verh, page 10.
247 Official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 16 September 2025, page 3.
248 Official report of the interview of the witness, official report number 3627, document code Verh, page 10.
249 Official report of the interview of the witness, official report number 3627, document code Verh, pages 8 to 9
and official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 16 September 2025, pages 3 to
4.
250 Official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 16 September 2025, page 5.
251 Official report of the interview of the witness, official report number 3627, document code Verh, page 10.
252 Official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 16 September 2025, page 6.
253 Folder E .33, document 11, pages 15730 to 15736.
254 Folder E .33, document 11, pages 15727, 15728, 15731, 15733.
255 Folder E .31, document 18, pages 14898 to 14900.
256 Folder E .11, document 20, pages 5617, 5618, 5651, 5652.
257 Folder E .11, document 19, page 5581.
258 Folder E .32, document 5, page 15004.
259 Folder E .11, document 19, pages 5606, 5607.
260 Folder E .11, document 19, pages 5607, 5608, 5610.
261 Folder E .11, document 20, pages 5628, 5629
262 Folder E .11, document 19, pages 5608, 5610.
263 Folder E .11, document 20, page 5640.
264 Folder E .11, document 19, page 5611.
265 Folder E .11, document 19, page 5612.



266 Folder E .11, document 19, page 5630.
267 Folder E .11, document 20, page 5623.
268 Folder E .11, document 20, pages 5631, 5632.
269 Folder E .11, document 20, pages 5633, 5636.
270 Folder E .11, document 20, page 5634.
271 Folder E .11, document 20, pages 5636, 5637.
272 Folder E .11, document 20, page 5634.
273 Folder E .11, document 20, page 5642.
274 Folder E .11, document 20, page 5644.
275 Folder E .11, document 20, page 5645.
276 Folder E .11, document 20, pages 5646, 5647.
277 Folder E .11, document 20, pages 5647, 5648, 5649, 5651.
278 Folder E .11, document 20, pages 5650, 5651.
279 Folder E .31, document 18, pages 14898 to 14900.
280 Folder E .12, document 13, pages 6206, 6208.
281 Folder E .12, document 13, page 6209.
282 Folder E .12, document 13, page 6212.
283 Folder E .12, document 13, page 6206.
284 Folder E .12, document 13, pages 6247, 6248, 6251, 6252.
285 Folder E .12, document 13, pages 6206, 6207.
286 The official report of the interview of the witness on 27 May 2025, pages 3, 4, 6.
287 The official report of the interview of the witness on 27 May 2025, page 7.
288 Folder E .31, document 18, pages 14898 to 14900.
289 Folder E .11, document 30, pages 5723, 5731 and folder E .11, document 31, page 5749.
290 Folder E .11, document 31, page 5762.
291 Folder E .11, document 31, page 5749.
292 Folder E .11, document 31, page 5755.
293 Folder E .11, document 30, page 5731.
294 Folder E .11, document 31, pages 5761, 5762.
295 Folder E .11, document 30, page 5731.
296 Folder E .30, document 18, pages 14529 to 14531 and folder E .32, document 18, pages 15131 to
15140.
297 Folder E .27, document 18, pages 13187 to 13196.
298 Folder E .30, document 18, pages 14530 to 14531 and folder E .35, document 25, pages 16532 to
16533 and folder E .35, document 26, pages 16534 to 16535.
299 Folder E .12, document 11, pages 5976 and 5990 and folder E .27, document 15, page 13119 and running official
report, case file 007, page 21.
300 Folder E .12, document 7, pages 5875 and 5877, folder E .12, document 8, page 5908 and folder E .12,
document 10, page 5950.




301
11.
302



303



304
Official report of the interview of the witness by the examining magistrate dated 14 March 2024, pages 3, 8 and



Folder E .12, document 10, page 5943.
Folder E .12, document 6, page 5904.
The written document: GBA-V registration, page 34.



305 Folder E .12, document 8, pages 5911 to 5913 and folder E .12, document 9, page 5924.
306 Folder E .12, document 7, page 5884.
307 Folder E .12, document 10, page 5952.
308 Folder E .12, document 9, pages 5926 to 5929.
309 Folder E .12, document 9, page 5931.
310 Folder E .12, document 8, pages 5911 to 5913 and folder E .12, document 9, page 5924.
311 Folder E .12, document 11, photo folder pages 6162 to 6168.
312 Folder E .12, document 8, pages 5914 and 5917 to 5918 and folder E .12, document 11, page 5965 and
page 5982.
313 Folder E .12, document 8, page 5916.
314 Folder E .12, document 7, pages 5894 to 5896 and folder E .12, document 9, page 5942.
315 Folder E .12, document 8, page 5919.
316 Folder E .12, document 7, page 5891.
317 Folder E .12, document 11, page 5965.
318 Folder E .12, document 11, pages 5967 to 5970.
319 Folder E .14, document 18, pages 7167 to 7168 and official report of the interview of the witness by the examining
magistrate dated 18 March 2024, page 4.
320 Folder E .14, document 18, page 7166 and official report of the interview of the witness by the examining
magistrate dated 18 March 2024, page 3.
321 Folder E .14, document 18, pages 7166 to 7169.
322 Folder E .14, document 18, page 7170.
323 Folder E .14, document 18, page 7170.
324 Folder E .10, document 18, page 5227.
325 Folder E .10, document 18, pages 5230 to 5235.
326 HR 7 April 1998, ECLI:NL:HR:1998:ZD1001, NJ 1998/558 and HR 21 October 2003,
ECLI:NL:HR:2003:AL3537, LJN (Landelijk Jurisprudentienummer) AL3537 and HR 1 September 2020, ECLI:NL:HR:2020:1348, NJ 2020/332.
327 Parliamentary Papers II 2003/04, 29291, 3, page 16.
328 Parliamentary Papers II 1991/92, 22142, 3, page 11, 12.
329 HR 1 October 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1455.
330 HR 26 September 2023, ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1303.
331 See, among others: folder E .18, document 7, page 8962 and folder E .17, document 6, pages 8556 and 8558.
332 See, among others: folder E .18, document 6, page 8876 and folder E .11, document 19, pages 5608, 5610 and
folder E .15, document 2, pages 7324, 7325, 7327.
333 See, among others, folder E .15, document 16, page 7714 and folder E .17, document 3, pages 8430 to
8433 and folder E .17, document 6, pages 8554 to 8556 and 8558.
334 These are the witnesses [witnesses].
335 See, among others: folder E .08, document 5, pages 4011 to 4013, 4018, 4019, 4025, 4026, 4028, 4030
and folder E .17, document 2, pages 8399, 8400 and folder E .11, document 19, page 5611.
336 See, among others: folder E .15, document 3, pages 7337, 7341 and folder E .11, document 20, page 5644
and folder E .12, document 10, page 5952.
337 See, among others: folder E .15, document 3, pages 7337, 7341 and folder E .17, document 2, pages 8399,
8400 and folder E .12, document 9, pages 5926 to 5929 and 5931.
338 HR 17 February 2009, ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BG1653, LJN BG1653, NJ 2009, 120.
339 Folder E .36, document 2, pages 16567 to 16584.
340 HR 27 March 1933, ECLI:NL:HR:1933:47, NJ 1933/902.



341 Folder E .08, document 9, pages 4079, 4080.
342 See section 3.3.2. of the present judgment for the opinion already set out in this regard.
343 The official report of the interview of witness 45 by the examining magistrate dated 20 March 2024, pages 8
and 9.
344 HR 4 February 2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:181 cf. HR 20 April 2021, ECLI:NL:HR:2021:576 ([name 28]).
345 HR 20 March 2018, ECLI:NL:HR:2018:378.
346 HR 16 October 1990, ECLI:NL:HR:1990:AD1248.
347 See also section 5.4.1. of this judgment.
348 [co-defendant 4] [co-defendant 1], [co-defendant 5], [co-defendant 6], [co-defendant 7],
[co-defendant 8], [co-defendant 9] and [co-defendant 10].
349 See, among others: folder E .08, document 4, pages 3992 to 3996, 3998 and folder E .15, document 14,
pages 7645 to 7648 and folder E .11, document 19, page 5611.
350 See, among others: folder E .17, document 2, pages 8396 to 8398, 8423 and folder E .12, document 7,
page 5884.
351 See, among others: folder E .15, document 14, pages 7645 to 7648 and folder E .08, document 4, page
3992 to 3996, 3998 and folder E .14, document 14, page 7126 and folder E .18, document 6, pages 8880 to 8882.
352 See, among others: folder E .15, document 14, pages 7652 to 7654.
353 See, among others: folder E .18, document 7, page 8962 and folder E .17, document 6, pages 8556 and 8558.
354 See, among others: folder E .18, document 6, page 8876 and folder E .11, document 19, pages 5608, 5610 and
folder E .15, document 2, pages 7324, 7325, 7327.
355 EC Regulation No 864/2007 of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-
contractual obligations, OJ EU 2007 L 199.
356 Expert report [name 24] and [name 23], page 3.
357 Supreme Court, Civil Cassation, Appeal No 184/44, hearing of 30 April 2002.
358 Supreme Court, Civil Cassation, Appeal No 9/34, hearing of 18 January 1988.
359 Supreme Court, Criminal Cassation, Appeal No 366/41, hearing of 11 January 1995.
360 H.01.19, page 2 (daily exchange rate case file 1: daily exchange rate 1 = US $1.0967).
361 Folder E .17, document 6, pages 8554, 8555 and 8565.
362 Official report of the interview of the witness, official report number 3627, document code Verh, page 9.