Counsel argued for acquittal. The primary and subsidiary charges cannot be proven. The victim's statements are internally contradictory on many points and cannot be used in evidence in view of the Supreme Court's ruling of June 6, 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1017). The victim's statements are decisive in this case. He is the only one who has stated that the defendant allegedly tied him up and assaulted him. The defense has requested to question the victim. That request was also previously granted by the court, but the victim did not appear at any invitation for questioning before the examining magistrate. Despite showing the necessary initiative, the defense was unable to exercise its interrogation rights. No compensation was offered to the defense for the lack of opportunity for questioning, which would constitute a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter, ECHR). Moreover, the victim's statements are not otherwise supported by other evidence either.

Nor can the more subsidiary charge be proven. The indictment accuses the accused of prior complicity, while the actualization thereof indicates simultaneous complicity. In addition, the requirement of double intent is not met. The accused did not have an intent to commit the committed predicate act and to contribute to that act himself. Finally, it cannot be proven that the defendant actually rendered assistance. Mere failure to prevent a crime is not criminal complicity if there is no legal duty to intervene.