Law Minister need not admit claimant to reintegration phase

The Minister for Legal Protection has rightly decided that the claimant is not eligible for reintegration activities for the time being. This is what the interim relief judge ruled today in summary proceedings that the claimant had filed against the State.

Background

plaintiff was sentenced to life in prison in 1996 for committing seven life crimes. In 2019, the Advisory Committee on Life Sentences (ACL) recommended that plaintiff not be admitted to reintegration activities for the time being. These are activities designed to prepare a life sentence for a possible return to society. The minister followed that advice from the ACL.

Position of plaintiff

plaintiff disagrees with the Minister's decision. According to him, the procedure followed leading to that decision was not careful in all respects. For example, the claimant did not have access to records of hearings. In addition, he disagrees with the ACL's requirement that he talk about all seven offenses, as he denies having committed 6 of them. According to the claimant, this violates Article 3 ECHR.

Negative opinion rightly given

The preliminary injunction judge ruled that the opinion in the claimant's case was not careless or incorrect. It follows from the opinion that the hearings did not play a decisive role in the advice not to admit him to reintegration activities. Documents of the claimant's examination at the Pieter Baan Center and the probation report about him did receive them in advance. It was precisely these documents that determined the final judgment. In particular, a negative advice was given because the claimant showed restraint during the examination by the Pieter Baan Center and the Parole Board and did not or hardly want to talk about himself, his social network and his future plans. As a result, the investigations were limited and the investigators were unable to comment on the presence or absence of a personality disorder and recidivism risk. It is clear from the advice that the ACL advised that for this reason alone the claimant was not yet eligible for reintegration activities. In the light of the investigations conducted, the court in preliminary relief proceedings considers this advice to be perfectly understandable. Incidentally, within two years the ACL will again have to assess whether the claimant can still be admitted to the reintegration phase.