ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:4687

ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:4687 text/xml public 2026-05-18T16:02:37 2026-05-13 Raad voor de Rechtspraak nl Rechtbank Amsterdam 2026-04-21 13-351499-25 Uitspraak Eerste en enige aanleg NL Amsterdam Strafrecht; Europees strafrecht Rechtspraak.nl http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:4687 text/html public 2026-05-18T13:29:03 2026-05-18 Raad voor de Rechtspraak nl ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:4687 Rechtbank Amsterdam , 21-04-2026 / 13-351499-25 Executie-EAB uit Letland. Letse detentieomstandigheden: de aanvullende informatie levert geen wijziging van omstandigheden op zoals bedoeld in artikel 11 OLW, zodat geen gevolg wordt gegeven aan het EAB en de officier van justitie niet-ontvankelijk wordt verklaard. RECHTBANK AMSTERDAM INTERNATIONALE RECHTSHULPKAMER Parketnummer: 13-351499-25 Datum uitspraak: 21 april 2026 UITSPRAAK op de vordering van 8 januari 2026 van de officier van justitie bij deze rechtbank tot het in behandeling nemen van een Europees aanhoudingsbevel (EAB). Dit EAB is uitgevaardigd op 24 oktober 2024 door the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Latvia, Letland, (hierna: de uitvaardigende justitiële autoriteit) en strekt tot de aanhouding en overlevering van: [opgeëiste persoon] , geboren op [geboortedag] 1996 te [geboorteplaats] (Letland), niet ingeschreven op een Nederlands adres in de Basisregistratie personen, met als feitelijk verblijfsadres: [adres] , hierna ‘de opgeëiste persoon’. 1 Procesgang De behandeling van het EAB is aangevangen op de zitting van 3 maart 2026, in aanwezigheid van mr. G.J.A.M. Rasker, officier van justitie. De opgeëiste persoon is verschenen en is bijgestaan door zijn raadsman, mr. N. Stegerhoek, advocaat in Amsterdam, die waarneemt voor zijn kantoorgenoot, mr. M.L. van Gessel, en door een tolk in de Letse taal. De rechtbank heeft de termijn waarbinnen zij op grond van de Overleveringswet (OLW) uitspraak moet doen over de verzochte overlevering met dertig dagen verlengd. Daarnaast heeft de rechtbank voor sluiting van het onderzoek ter zitting de gevangenhouding bevolen, met gelijktijdige schorsing van dat bevel tot aan de uitspraak. Tussenuitspraak 17 maart 2026 In deze tussenuitspraak heeft de rechtbank het onderzoek heropend en vastgesteld dat voor de opgeëiste persoon sprake is van een individueel reëel gevaar van schending van zijn grondrechten, nu met de aanvullende informatie het eerder vastgestelde algemene gevaar voor gedetineerden in Letland niet is weggenomen. Op grond van artikel 11, tweede lid, OLW is de beslissing over de overlevering aangehouden, omdat een mogelijkheid bestaat dat bij wijziging van de omstandigheden het reële gevaar van een onmenselijke of vernederende behandeling alsnog kan worden uitgesloten. De rechtbank heeft hier een redelijke termijn van 30 dagen aan verbonden en heeft geoordeeld dat, als binnen deze termijn zich geen gewijzigde omstandigheden voordoen, geen gevolg zal worden gegeven aan het EAB. De rechtbank heeft de beslistermijn op grond van artikel 22, vierde lid, OLW verlengd met zestig dagen, onder gelijktijdige verlenging van de geschorste gevangenhouding. Zitting 21 april 2026 Op deze zitting is de behandeling van het EAB, met instemming van de raadsman en de officier van justitie, in gewijzigde samenstelling voortgezet in aanwezigheid van mr. K. van der Schaft, officier van justitie. De opgeëiste persoon is verschenen en is bijgestaan door zijn raadsman, mr. N. Stegerhoek, die waarneemt voor mr. M.L. van Gessel, beiden advocaat in Amsterdam, en door een telefonische tolk in de Letse taal. De rechtbank heeft het onderzoek gesloten en direct uitspraak gedaan. 2 Identiteit van de opgeëiste persoon Ter zitting heeft de opgeëiste persoon verklaard dat de bovenvermelde persoonsgegevens juist zijn en dat hij de Letse nationaliteit heeft. 3 Tussenuitspraak De rechtbank stelt vast dat bij de tussenuitspraak van deze rechtbank van 17 maart 2026 reeds is geoordeeld over de grondslag en inhoud van het EAB, de (dubbele) strafbaarheid van de feiten en de verdedigingsrechten van de opgeëiste persoon zoals bedoeld in artikel 12 OLW. Hetgeen de rechtbank heeft overwogen moet als hier herhaald en ingelast worden beschouwd. 4 Artikel 11 OLW: Letse detentieomstandigheden De rechtbank verwijst in dit kader allereerst naar haar overwegingen onder punt 6 van de tussenuitspraak van 17 maart 2026. Die overwegingen moeten hier als herhaald en ingelast worden beschouwd. De officier van justitie heeft naar aanleiding van de tussenuitspraak aanvullende vragen gesteld aan de Letse autoriteiten. De Letse autoriteiten hebben bij aanvullende informatie van 24 maart 2026 onder meer het volgende medegedeeld op die vragen: “Section 95 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia (Satversme), inter alia, provides that the State shall protect human honour and dignity, and that torture or other cruel or degrading treatment of human beings is prohibited. Torture, inhuman and degrading treatment are also prohibited under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The administration, officials and employees of the places of imprisonment in the Republic of Latvia comply with both national and international laws and regulations. The staff of the places of imprisonment in the Republic of Latvia treat the prisoners humanely and do not subject them to any other difficulties or restrictions other than those arising from the purpose of imprisonment and the necessary and inevitable consequences of imprisonment. In particular, when executing any type of criminal sentence, including also a restraint measure - arrest, certain guarantees are provided in the places of imprisonment in the Republic of Latvia against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment of imprisoned persons. The purpose of execution of a sentence is not to cause physical suffering or to degrade human dignity. The Administration also informs that imprisoned persons' safety is assured by carrying out regular inspections and supervision. The prison staff are trained in conflict solving and violence prevention. Video surveillance systems are also in use in order to prevent any violence or other incidents. In prisons there is provided a system of uninterrupted 24-hour supervision, which includes video surveillance and regular inspections carried out by the staff. If a risk of violence or degrading treatment is detected, the imprisoned person will be moved to another cell. The officials of places of imprisonment perform regular inspections of the imprisoned persons' cells, thus systemically controlling and supervising the imprisoned persons (for example, their behaviour, any traumas, atmosphere in a cell), and also - in case of any existent endangerment - the imprisoned persons can apply to the available official and ask for assistance or protection. The Administration would like to point out that officials in the Latvian places of imprisonment, when supervising the prisoners, strictly observe the applicable regulatory enactments and ethical norms in order to prevent physical suffering, degrading treatment and discrimination of imprisoned persons. The Administration informs that placement and accommodation of imprisoned persons in places of imprisonment is carried out in accordance with the criteria laid down in the following laws: the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and the Law on the Procedures for Holding under Arrest (hereinafter referred to as the Law). For example, pursuant to Section 13 1 of the Code, the placement of convicted persons in a specific place of imprisonment shall be determined by the Head of the Administration, taking into consideration medical, security and crime prevention criteria.

ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:4687 text/xml public 2026-05-18T16:02:37 2026-05-13 Raad voor de Rechtspraak nl Rechtbank Amsterdam 2026-04-21 13-351499-25 Uitspraak Eerste en enige aanleg NL Amsterdam Strafrecht; Europees strafrecht Rechtspraak.nl http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:4687 text/html public 2026-05-18T13:29:03 2026-05-18 Raad voor de Rechtspraak nl ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:4687 Rechtbank Amsterdam , 21-04-2026 / 13-351499-25 Executie-EAB uit Letland. Letse detentieomstandigheden: de aanvullende informatie levert geen wijziging van omstandigheden op zoals bedoeld in artikel 11 OLW, zodat geen gevolg wordt gegeven aan het EAB en de officier van justitie niet-ontvankelijk wordt verklaard. RECHTBANK AMSTERDAM INTERNATIONALE RECHTSHULPKAMER Parketnummer: 13-351499-25 Datum uitspraak: 21 april 2026 UITSPRAAK op de vordering van 8 januari 2026 van de officier van justitie bij deze rechtbank tot het in behandeling nemen van een Europees aanhoudingsbevel (EAB). Dit EAB is uitgevaardigd op 24 oktober 2024 door the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Latvia, Letland, (hierna: de uitvaardigende justitiële autoriteit) en strekt tot de aanhouding en overlevering van: [opgeëiste persoon] , geboren op [geboortedag] 1996 te [geboorteplaats] (Letland), niet ingeschreven op een Nederlands adres in de Basisregistratie personen, met als feitelijk verblijfsadres: [adres] , hierna ‘de opgeëiste persoon’. 1 Procesgang De behandeling van het EAB is aangevangen op de zitting van 3 maart 2026, in aanwezigheid van mr. G.J.A.M. Rasker, officier van justitie. De opgeëiste persoon is verschenen en is bijgestaan door zijn raadsman, mr. N. Stegerhoek, advocaat in Amsterdam, die waarneemt voor zijn kantoorgenoot, mr. M.L. van Gessel, en door een tolk in de Letse taal. De rechtbank heeft de termijn waarbinnen zij op grond van de Overleveringswet (OLW) uitspraak moet doen over de verzochte overlevering met dertig dagen verlengd. Daarnaast heeft de rechtbank voor sluiting van het onderzoek ter zitting de gevangenhouding bevolen, met gelijktijdige schorsing van dat bevel tot aan de uitspraak. Tussenuitspraak 17 maart 2026 In deze tussenuitspraak heeft de rechtbank het onderzoek heropend en vastgesteld dat voor de opgeëiste persoon sprake is van een individueel reëel gevaar van schending van zijn grondrechten, nu met de aanvullende informatie het eerder vastgestelde algemene gevaar voor gedetineerden in Letland niet is weggenomen. Op grond van artikel 11, tweede lid, OLW is de beslissing over de overlevering aangehouden, omdat een mogelijkheid bestaat dat bij wijziging van de omstandigheden het reële gevaar van een onmenselijke of vernederende behandeling alsnog kan worden uitgesloten. De rechtbank heeft hier een redelijke termijn van 30 dagen aan verbonden en heeft geoordeeld dat, als binnen deze termijn zich geen gewijzigde omstandigheden voordoen, geen gevolg zal worden gegeven aan het EAB. De rechtbank heeft de beslistermijn op grond van artikel 22, vierde lid, OLW verlengd met zestig dagen, onder gelijktijdige verlenging van de geschorste gevangenhouding. Zitting 21 april 2026 Op deze zitting is de behandeling van het EAB, met instemming van de raadsman en de officier van justitie, in gewijzigde samenstelling voortgezet in aanwezigheid van mr. K. van der Schaft, officier van justitie. De opgeëiste persoon is verschenen en is bijgestaan door zijn raadsman, mr. N. Stegerhoek, die waarneemt voor mr. M.L. van Gessel, beiden advocaat in Amsterdam, en door een telefonische tolk in de Letse taal. De rechtbank heeft het onderzoek gesloten en direct uitspraak gedaan. 2 Identiteit van de opgeëiste persoon Ter zitting heeft de opgeëiste persoon verklaard dat de bovenvermelde persoonsgegevens juist zijn en dat hij de Letse nationaliteit heeft. 3 Tussenuitspraak De rechtbank stelt vast dat bij de tussenuitspraak van deze rechtbank van 17 maart 2026 reeds is geoordeeld over de grondslag en inhoud van het EAB, de (dubbele) strafbaarheid van de feiten en de verdedigingsrechten van de opgeëiste persoon zoals bedoeld in artikel 12 OLW. Hetgeen de rechtbank heeft overwogen moet als hier herhaald en ingelast worden beschouwd. 4 Artikel 11 OLW: Letse detentieomstandigheden De rechtbank verwijst in dit kader allereerst naar haar overwegingen onder punt 6 van de tussenuitspraak van 17 maart 2026. Die overwegingen moeten hier als herhaald en ingelast worden beschouwd. De officier van justitie heeft naar aanleiding van de tussenuitspraak aanvullende vragen gesteld aan de Letse autoriteiten. De Letse autoriteiten hebben bij aanvullende informatie van 24 maart 2026 onder meer het volgende medegedeeld op die vragen: “Section 95 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia (Satversme), inter alia, provides that the State shall protect human honour and dignity, and that torture or other cruel or degrading treatment of human beings is prohibited. Torture, inhuman and degrading treatment are also prohibited under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The administration, officials and employees of the places of imprisonment in the Republic of Latvia comply with both national and international laws and regulations. The staff of the places of imprisonment in the Republic of Latvia treat the prisoners humanely and do not subject them to any other difficulties or restrictions other than those arising from the purpose of imprisonment and the necessary and inevitable consequences of imprisonment. In particular, when executing any type of criminal sentence, including also a restraint measure - arrest, certain guarantees are provided in the places of imprisonment in the Republic of Latvia against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment of imprisoned persons. The purpose of execution of a sentence is not to cause physical suffering or to degrade human dignity. The Administration also informs that imprisoned persons' safety is assured by carrying out regular inspections and supervision. The prison staff are trained in conflict solving and violence prevention. Video surveillance systems are also in use in order to prevent any violence or other incidents. In prisons there is provided a system of uninterrupted 24-hour supervision, which includes video surveillance and regular inspections carried out by the staff. If a risk of violence or degrading treatment is detected, the imprisoned person will be moved to another cell. The officials of places of imprisonment perform regular inspections of the imprisoned persons' cells, thus systemically controlling and supervising the imprisoned persons (for example, their behaviour, any traumas, atmosphere in a cell), and also - in case of any existent endangerment - the imprisoned persons can apply to the available official and ask for assistance or protection. The Administration would like to point out that officials in the Latvian places of imprisonment, when supervising the prisoners, strictly observe the applicable regulatory enactments and ethical norms in order to prevent physical suffering, degrading treatment and discrimination of imprisoned persons. The Administration informs that placement and accommodation of imprisoned persons in places of imprisonment is carried out in accordance with the criteria laid down in the following laws: the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and the Law on the Procedures for Holding under Arrest (hereinafter referred to as the Law). For example, pursuant to Section 13 1 of the Code, the placement of convicted persons in a specific place of imprisonment shall be determined by the Head of the Administration, taking into consideration medical, security and crime prevention criteria.

In accordance with Paragraph one of Section 132 of the Code, the committee for the allocation of convicted persons established by the order of the head of a deprivation of liberty institution determines in which section, unit and cell of the relevant deprivation of liberty institution the convicted person shall be placed, considering vacant places in cells, psychological compatibility, health conditions, attitude towards smoking, and prior criminal record of the convicted persons. Also, in institutions of deprivation of liberty men and women, and also minors and adult persons, are accommodated separately. Separately are also held those convicted persons, whose personal characteristics and criminal record have a negative impact on other convicts, or those who oppress and abuse others. Persons to whom there was applied a restraint measure - arrest - are held separately from the convicted persons, unless they agree either to be placed together or to be involved in joint activities, and if the specific investigating authority, prosecution office or court in the jurisdiction of which the relevant person is placed, also agrees to it (Paragraphs one and two of Section 18 of the Code). In accordance with Section 11 of the Law, arrested men and women, and also arrested minors and adult persons are accommodated separately. From 2022, persons arrested within the same criminal proceedings at first are detained separately for 10 days, but after the said period, such arrested persons are still detained separately only if the person directing the proceedings takes a decision to impose a restriction on meetings and communications between these arrested persons. Arrested persons who, prior to their arrest, have not served a custodial sentence in places of deprivation of liberty are detained separately from other arrested persons. Arrested persons are placed in cells, taking into consideration internal security as well as (as far as it is possible) their personal characteristics and psychological compatibility. In accordance with Section 111 of the Law, the head of the Prisons Administration may transfer an arrested person to another remand prison, taking into consideration medical, security, and crime prevention criteria. Additionally, we would like to inform you that the premises are being renovated and repaired as much as it is possible, as a result of these renovations and repairs, the number of inmates per cell is being reduced, thereby creating a safer prison environment. Throughout these renovations, living conditions are improved and security risks of any prohibited objects and substances being brought into cells are eliminated, which, in its turn, reduces violence in places of imprisonment and prevents the support of informal hierarchy of prisoners, since it reduces prisoners' ability to assert their power and dominance over other prisoners, which is typically based on the possession of prohibited items or substances by the prisoner in question. The development of the use of video surveillance cameras and other technical means that help reduce the manifestations of informal hierarchy. The use of video surveillance cameras in places of imprisonment helps officials to immediately react to threats, suspicious or violent behaviour, and to prevent physical and emotional violence among imprisoned persons, especially in areas where a larger number of prisoners may be held, also if they are from different cells. Given that the use of video surveillance cameras in places of imprisonment reduces the possibility of influencing prisoners from 'lower caste', it also contributes to reducing the prevalence of informal hierarchies among imprisoned persons. Technical means are also used to prevent unauthorized objects from being brought into places of imprisonment, which also reduces the influence of the informal hierarchy among prisoners. It is also important to note that in Latvian prisons there is no division of prisoners into castes of any kind; the administration of each prison treats all imprisoned persons equally, observing the principle of equality and preventing any form of discrimination on the part of the administration or other prisoners. In places of detention under the Administration's jurisdiction, prisoners' rights are ensured in accordance with the applicable laws. Within places of detention, there exists a so-called informal hierarchy among prisoners, in which imprisoned persons are the ones who categorize themselves. Thus, the division of prisoners into castes is not attributable to the actual actions of the Prisons Administration or the administration of each prison. Prison officials perform their duties in accordance with regulatory enactments, observing all provisions of the Prisons Administration's Code of Ethics. Also, the Administration informs that on 11 January 2024, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case “D. vs Latvia”, concluding that there had been a violation of the rights guaranteed in Articcle 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court considered that the public authorities had not acted sufficiently to eliminate the informal hierarchy of prisoners that exists in places of imprisonment. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice developed and on 8 October 2024 the Cabinet of Ministers supported (namely - No. 41, § 33) the informative report "On actions to reduce the informal hierarchy of prisoners in places of imprisonment". This report describes the significant improvements in enforcement of imprisonment that have already been made since the events described in the judgment (during the time-frame from 2008 until 2017) and includes a comprehensive action plan for the implementation of judgments, identifying the current situation in places of deprivation of liberty, the measures needed to implement judgments, including measures to address the issues of inadequate infrastructure in places of imprisonment, to increase the number and capacity of prison staff and to fill vacancies, and to improve the resocialisation system. The action plan included in the report summarizes measures both already implemented and still to be implemented in the following areas: 1. measures to improve the capacity of Prisons Administration staff (new training programs, an appropriate Training Center building, measures to reduce staff turnover and improve remuneration, measures to expand the circle of persons who can apply for service, etc.); 2. further development of the prisoner resocialization system (in accordance with the government's previously established Resocialization Policy Development Guidelines for 2022- 2027); 3. measures to improve the infrastructure of places of imprisonment (construction of the new Liepāja Prison and subsequent closure of several prisons, reconstruction of the Valmiera Prison block, renovations in already existing prisons, etc.); 4. measures to improve the training of judges This set of measures will reduce the display of informal hierarchy among prisoners in places of imprisonment.” Standpunt van de raadsman De raadsman heeft zich op het standpunt gesteld dat de nieuw verkregen informatie geen wijziging in de omstandigheden oplevert zoals bedoeld in artikel 11, tweede lid, OLW. De informatie, die in feite een herhaling is van de eerder verstrekte informatie, is te algemeen van aard om het reële gevaar ten aanzien van de waarborging van de grondrechten te kunnen wegnemen. De raadsman heeft verzocht om - in lijn met een eerdere uitspraak van deze rechtbank - geen gevolg te geven aan het EAB en de officier van justitie niet-ontvankelijk te verklaren. Standpunt van de officier van justitie De officier van justitie heeft zich gerefereerd aan het oordeel van de rechtbank. Oordeel van de rechtbank Met de raadsman is de rechtbank van oordeel dat de aanvullende informatie van 24 maart 2026 niet leidt tot een wijziging in de omstandigheden waarmee het eerder vastgestelde reële gevaar zoals bedoeld in artikel 11, eerste lid, OLW wordt weggenomen.

In accordance with Paragraph one of Section 132 of the Code, the committee for the allocation of convicted persons established by the order of the head of a deprivation of liberty institution determines in which section, unit and cell of the relevant deprivation of liberty institution the convicted person shall be placed, considering vacant places in cells, psychological compatibility, health conditions, attitude towards smoking, and prior criminal record of the convicted persons. Also, in institutions of deprivation of liberty men and women, and also minors and adult persons, are accommodated separately. Separately are also held those convicted persons, whose personal characteristics and criminal record have a negative impact on other convicts, or those who oppress and abuse others. Persons to whom there was applied a restraint measure - arrest - are held separately from the convicted persons, unless they agree either to be placed together or to be involved in joint activities, and if the specific investigating authority, prosecution office or court in the jurisdiction of which the relevant person is placed, also agrees to it (Paragraphs one and two of Section 18 of the Code). In accordance with Section 11 of the Law, arrested men and women, and also arrested minors and adult persons are accommodated separately. From 2022, persons arrested within the same criminal proceedings at first are detained separately for 10 days, but after the said period, such arrested persons are still detained separately only if the person directing the proceedings takes a decision to impose a restriction on meetings and communications between these arrested persons. Arrested persons who, prior to their arrest, have not served a custodial sentence in places of deprivation of liberty are detained separately from other arrested persons. Arrested persons are placed in cells, taking into consideration internal security as well as (as far as it is possible) their personal characteristics and psychological compatibility. In accordance with Section 111 of the Law, the head of the Prisons Administration may transfer an arrested person to another remand prison, taking into consideration medical, security, and crime prevention criteria. Additionally, we would like to inform you that the premises are being renovated and repaired as much as it is possible, as a result of these renovations and repairs, the number of inmates per cell is being reduced, thereby creating a safer prison environment. Throughout these renovations, living conditions are improved and security risks of any prohibited objects and substances being brought into cells are eliminated, which, in its turn, reduces violence in places of imprisonment and prevents the support of informal hierarchy of prisoners, since it reduces prisoners' ability to assert their power and dominance over other prisoners, which is typically based on the possession of prohibited items or substances by the prisoner in question. The development of the use of video surveillance cameras and other technical means that help reduce the manifestations of informal hierarchy. The use of video surveillance cameras in places of imprisonment helps officials to immediately react to threats, suspicious or violent behaviour, and to prevent physical and emotional violence among imprisoned persons, especially in areas where a larger number of prisoners may be held, also if they are from different cells. Given that the use of video surveillance cameras in places of imprisonment reduces the possibility of influencing prisoners from 'lower caste', it also contributes to reducing the prevalence of informal hierarchies among imprisoned persons. Technical means are also used to prevent unauthorized objects from being brought into places of imprisonment, which also reduces the influence of the informal hierarchy among prisoners. It is also important to note that in Latvian prisons there is no division of prisoners into castes of any kind; the administration of each prison treats all imprisoned persons equally, observing the principle of equality and preventing any form of discrimination on the part of the administration or other prisoners. In places of detention under the Administration's jurisdiction, prisoners' rights are ensured in accordance with the applicable laws. Within places of detention, there exists a so-called informal hierarchy among prisoners, in which imprisoned persons are the ones who categorize themselves. Thus, the division of prisoners into castes is not attributable to the actual actions of the Prisons Administration or the administration of each prison. Prison officials perform their duties in accordance with regulatory enactments, observing all provisions of the Prisons Administration's Code of Ethics. Also, the Administration informs that on 11 January 2024, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case “D. vs Latvia”, concluding that there had been a violation of the rights guaranteed in Articcle 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court considered that the public authorities had not acted sufficiently to eliminate the informal hierarchy of prisoners that exists in places of imprisonment. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice developed and on 8 October 2024 the Cabinet of Ministers supported (namely - No. 41, § 33) the informative report "On actions to reduce the informal hierarchy of prisoners in places of imprisonment". This report describes the significant improvements in enforcement of imprisonment that have already been made since the events described in the judgment (during the time-frame from 2008 until 2017) and includes a comprehensive action plan for the implementation of judgments, identifying the current situation in places of deprivation of liberty, the measures needed to implement judgments, including measures to address the issues of inadequate infrastructure in places of imprisonment, to increase the number and capacity of prison staff and to fill vacancies, and to improve the resocialisation system. The action plan included in the report summarizes measures both already implemented and still to be implemented in the following areas: 1. measures to improve the capacity of Prisons Administration staff (new training programs, an appropriate Training Center building, measures to reduce staff turnover and improve remuneration, measures to expand the circle of persons who can apply for service, etc.); 2. further development of the prisoner resocialization system (in accordance with the government's previously established Resocialization Policy Development Guidelines for 2022- 2027); 3. measures to improve the infrastructure of places of imprisonment (construction of the new Liepāja Prison and subsequent closure of several prisons, reconstruction of the Valmiera Prison block, renovations in already existing prisons, etc.); 4. measures to improve the training of judges This set of measures will reduce the display of informal hierarchy among prisoners in places of imprisonment.” Standpunt van de raadsman De raadsman heeft zich op het standpunt gesteld dat de nieuw verkregen informatie geen wijziging in de omstandigheden oplevert zoals bedoeld in artikel 11, tweede lid, OLW. De informatie, die in feite een herhaling is van de eerder verstrekte informatie, is te algemeen van aard om het reële gevaar ten aanzien van de waarborging van de grondrechten te kunnen wegnemen. De raadsman heeft verzocht om - in lijn met een eerdere uitspraak van deze rechtbank - geen gevolg te geven aan het EAB en de officier van justitie niet-ontvankelijk te verklaren. Standpunt van de officier van justitie De officier van justitie heeft zich gerefereerd aan het oordeel van de rechtbank. Oordeel van de rechtbank Met de raadsman is de rechtbank van oordeel dat de aanvullende informatie van 24 maart 2026 niet leidt tot een wijziging in de omstandigheden waarmee het eerder vastgestelde reële gevaar zoals bedoeld in artikel 11, eerste lid, OLW wordt weggenomen.