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] . 1 The 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. 2 The 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 . 3 The 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 (othe 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 nam 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 Net 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 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 de 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 pass 5 The 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 al 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 w 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 s 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 20 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 tha 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 threa 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 brot 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 a 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 c 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 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 Octob 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 correspond 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 repea 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 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 C 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 t 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 y 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 [ 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 takes took 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 were are filled/loaded with more people than the boat (s) was are 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 were are 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 [ 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 is was accompanied by many and/or daily assaults, whether or not using (water/garden) hoses and /or sticks and/or other (sharp) objects, there is was 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 takes took 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 are were filled/loaded with more people than the boat [witness 11] ( s ) are were suitable for, and /or the boat ( s ) are were 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 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 is was 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 2018 April 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 agains e 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 was is 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 takes 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) was suitable for, and /or the boat (s) used are leaking and/or start leaking and/or fill 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 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. 6 The 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 fa 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 o 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 Publi 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 clai 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 d 11 The 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 lia 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 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 viole [ 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 (othe 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 esidence 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 [da 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 mp, 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 [ [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 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 Crim ementioned 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 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 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, documen 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 P