CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 21 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF70FB6F2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#00b050 } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9A6E8000 { width:6.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD4F9A385 { width:4.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s599F5480 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B52A9A9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s6747EE63 { width:0.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8508A14D { width:8.94pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s14AC500A { width:3.73pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s8EEF439B { width:24.22pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s693BA7F2 { width:139.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s4E34B50A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s1C2B10C2 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s23CD0580 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s88A4DB4E { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sDD8F0D07 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6A269875 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s11BEB50D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sEAD70FA9 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s241BF43A { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FOURTH SECTION CASE OF F.B. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS (Applications nos. 28157/18 and 6 others – see appended list)       JUDGMENT   Art 3 (substantive) • Inhuman or degrading punishment • Life sentences reducible de jure under the new mandatory ex officio mechanism of executive review of life-sentences after twenty-eight years of detention in compliance with Art   3 • Review mechanism enabled the applicants to know what they must do to be considered for release and the conditions of review of their sentence • Review system involved reasoned decision-making by the executive combined with the possibility of judicial review • Sufficient procedural guarantees • Post-2017 statistical data did not show lack of reducibility of life-sentences in practice, that a life prisoner had negligible prospects of release or that pardon would always be an isolated exception • Review criteria publicly accessible, objective, sufficiently clear and adequately reflected the legitimate penological grounds as recognised in the Court’s case-law • Applicants’ life sentences will all be reviewed no later than twenty-five years after their imposition by the relevant appellate criminal court • Applicable time frame for review within the respondent State’s margin of appreciation and did not exceed any thresholds identified in the Court’s case-law • Applicants’ life sentences could not be regarded as de jure or de facto irreducible given their individual circumstances • Circumstances in which life-sentence prisoners might seek release, with reference to the legitimate penological grounds for detention, could be further specified through procedural refinement, domestic case-law and practice   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 21 April 2026   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of F.B. and Others v. the Netherlands, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Lado Chanturia , President ,   Jolien Schukking,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Sebastian Răduleţu,   András Jakab , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   28157/18 and six others) against the Kingdom of the Netherlands lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by one Azerbaijani national, one Moroccan national and five Dutch nationals listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the dates indicated in that table; the decision to give notice to the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 3 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the decision to grant one of the applicants (in application no. 28157/18) anonymity, in accordance with Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court; the decision of 7 November 2024 to re-communicate the case and invite the parties to submit further observations; the parties’ observations; the fact that the Azerbaijani Government did not express a wish to intervene in the present case (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule   44   §   1 (a) of the Rules of Court); Having deliberated in private on 24 March 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applicants complained that Dutch legislation and practice made their life sentences de jure and de facto irreducible, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants’ details are set out in the appended table. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs B. Koopman, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS A.    Mr F.B. (application no. 28157/18) 5.     The applicant was arrested on 20 May 2011. He has been in custody since then. 6.     On 11 October 2012 the Dordrecht Regional Court convicted the applicant of three counts of murder, manslaughter, attempted manslaughter and illegal possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. 7.     On 8 November 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court in relation to the convictions for murder and illegal possession of a firearm. 8 .     On 19 January 2015 the Court of Appeal of The Hague convicted the applicant of three counts of murder and illegal possession of a firearm (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:37). He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Like the first-instance court, the Court of Appeal did not consider this incompatible with Article   3 of the Convention because life-sentence prisoners had been granted a pardon in 1986 and 2009 and the civil courts could rule on the lawfulness of the execution or continued execution of the sentence. It was thus possible for the length of a life sentence to be reviewed at some point. 9.     On 19 January 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, submitting that the imposition of a life sentence was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. 10 .     On 24 May 2016 the Advocate-General at the Supreme Court delivered an initial advisory opinion indicating that the manner in which life sentences were executed at that time was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention (ECLI:NL:PHR:2016:406). 11 .     On 5 July 2016 the Supreme Court gave an interlocutory judgment in the applicant’s case (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:1325). Referring to the relevant principles as set out in Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos.   66069/09 and 2 others, §§ 104-122, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and Murray v. the Netherlands ([GC], no. 10511/10, §§ 99-112, 26 April 2016), it held that the imposition of a life sentence was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention: “3.4.     Dutch law (as yet) has no specific possibility of review of life imprisonment. Partly in view of what has been mentioned in the Advocate-General’s opinion ..., the Supreme Court considers that the current practice of execution [of a life sentence] is incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. The imposition of a life sentence will constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention [where] this practice has not changed so that a person sentenced to life imprisonment has a real possibility of review of the sentence ... which may lead to a reduction of the sentence or (conditional) release. 3.5.     The incompatibility with Article 3 of the Convention will cease if provision is made for the possibility of review of a life sentence ... (cf. also [ Čačko v.   Slovakia , no.   49905/08, 22 July 2014]). On 2 June 2016 the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice sent a letter to the Lower House of Parliament, outlining intended changes to the execution of a life sentence (Parliamentary Papers II 2015/16, 29   279, no. 325). As a result of this letter, it can be assumed that further political decision-making will take place ... 3.6.     It should be noted that ... even if at the time of the imposition of a life sentence the procedure of review fulfils the applicable conditions, the question of how [that procedure] relates to the requirements arising from Article   3 of the Convention may arise during the execution [of a life sentence]. For example, the possibility of review during execution must continue to meet the above-mentioned conditions, and during execution – and also before the above ‑ mentioned possibility of review can be used – the sentenced person must be able to prepare for a possible return to society. The assessment of the manner of execution will have to take place during the execution, and the lawfulness of the (continued) execution of that sentence may be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Prisons Act [designated] for that purpose, or in the context of civil proceedings.” 12 .     The Supreme Court adjourned further consideration of the case until 5   September 2017. 13.     On 5 September 2017 the Advocate-General delivered a supplementary advisory opinion (ECLI:NL:PHR:2017:874). The Advocate ‑ General retracted the earlier opinion (see paragraph 10 above) and recommended that the appeal on points of law be dismissed because a real possibility of review of a life sentence had been introduced in the meantime, following the entry into force of the Advisory Board Life-Sentence Prisoners Decree ( Besluit Adviescollege levenslanggestraften – “the Advisory Board Decree”) and other implementing legislation (see paragraphs   69-80 below). 14 .     On 19 December 2017 the Supreme Court gave its final judgment in the applicant’s case (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3185). It held that as a result of the entry into force of the Advisory Board Decree and other implementing legislation, Dutch law now had in place a review mechanism that allowed for the reduction of life sentences in appropriate cases, which meant that the imposition of a life sentence was not in itself incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention: “3.5.2.     On the basis of case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the point of departure is that the (first) review takes place no more than 25   years after the imposition of a life sentence, and that the possibility of review is offered periodically thereafter. It is not incompatible with this that Article 4 ... of the Advisory Board Decree provides that the ex officio assessment [by the responsible Minister] of the possibility of a pardon [under section 19 of the Pardons Act] takes place no later than 27 years after the start of detention, taking into account that, in accordance with Article   1   point   g. of the Decree, this period starts from the moment [a person is taken into] police custody or [held in] pre-trial detention for the offence for which the life sentence has been imposed [a footnote refers to Bodein v. France , no.   40014/10, § 61, 13   November 2014]. Furthermore, on the basis of the Pardons Act, the convicted person is entitled to submit an application for a pardon at any time. If a request for pardon in respect of a life sentence is submitted after the above-mentioned 27-year period, the Advisory Board is charged with the task of informing the Minister on the progress of resocialisation and reintegration activities [a footnote refers to the opening words and points b. and d. of Article 4 § 1 of the Advisory Board Decree]. 3.5.3.     In view of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, the question during review must be whether such changes on the part of the convicted person have taken place and [whether] such progress has been made in his or her resocialisation that continued execution of the life sentence is no longer justified. The general yardstick applied ... under section 2(b) of the Pardons Act is whether it has become plausible that the execution of the court decision or its continuation does not reasonably serve an objective to be pursued with the application of criminal law. With a view to applying this criterion, it is important to note that in the review procedure ..., the decision on pardon is inextricably linked to the advice given by the Advisory Board concerning the provision of reintegration activities, and this advice can be regarded as ‘the preliminary stage of the pardon procedure’. The criteria applied by the Advisory Board, as included in Article 4 § 4 of the Decree, are therefore also important for the decision concerning the granting of a pardon. Accordingly, the ex officio assessment of the possibility of granting a pardon or the assessment of a request for a pardon submitted after [that ex officio assessment] boils down to the question of whether, in view of the behaviour and development of the convicted person during his detention, and taking into account the other criteria mentioned in Article 4 § 4 of the Decree, continued execution of the life sentence is no longer justified. Because of this connection between the yardstick applicable in the pardon procedure on the one hand, and the advice given by the Advisory Board on the other, Article 4 § 4 of the Decree also provides the convicted person with sufficient insight into the objective criteria that are applied ... in the review procedure [a footnote refers to Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 57592/08, §§ 59-65, 17   January 2017, and Matiošaitis and Others v. Lithuania , nos. 22662/13 and 7 others, §   168, 23   May 2017]. 3.5.4.     With regard to the procedural guarantees in connection with the ex officio assessment of the possibility of a pardon or the assessment of a pardon request, the following is important. After advice has been given by the Advisory Board, the Minister takes a decision on whether or not to offer reintegration activities under Article 7 of the Decree. The Minister can only deviate from the Advisory Board’s advice to offer those activities by giving reasons [a footnote refers to Article 7 § 2 of the Advisory Board Decree]. If the course of the procedure or (the reasoning in) the Minister’s decision gives cause to do so, the convicted person can challenge that decision in proceedings before [a] civil court. The Pardons Act has no time-limit within which a decision on whether or not to grant a pardon must be taken. However, if the decision ... is not taken within a reasonable period of time, the civil court may, at the convicted person’s request, order that that decision be taken within a period of time set for that purpose. Furthermore, the Pardons Act does not provide for an appeal against a (negative) decision regarding the granting of a pardon. However ..., the convicted person can appeal to the civil court in connection with that decision. The latter can assess whether the negative decision on the granting of a pardon is unlawful in the light of the requirements set by Article 3 of the Convention. This assessment focuses in particular on the reasons given for the decision. If a request for a pardon is rejected, this obligation to state reasons is based on section 18(2) of the Pardons Act. A similar obligation to state reasons must be assumed, in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights [a footnote refers to Matiošaitis and Others , cited above, § 181], if the ex offi cio assessment referred to in Article 4 § 3 of the Decree does not lead to the granting of a pardon. Proper reasoning in the negative decision to grant a pardon is particularly important if it deviates from the opinion of the court that imposed the sentence, since this opinion is, as confirmed in the parliamentary documents, leading ( leidend ) in principle as regards taking the decision to grant a pardon. 3.5.5.     Within the framework of the execution of the life sentence, in accordance with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, before the expiry of the 25-year period referred to in [Article 4 of the Advisory Board Decree], the sentenced person should be offered activities – including work, education and behavioural interventions – that enable him [or her] to develop during the period of imprisonment, as well as to gain insight into the relevant and necessary development opportunities, for the benefit of a possible return to society and with a view to advising and deciding on the offer of reintegration activities after the end of that period. The [Advisory Board Decree and other implementing legislation] do not exclude [the possibility] that such activities are offered, and it is also important that, in connection with the convicted person being provided with appropriate (medical) treatment and (psychiatric) care, a behavioural expert report is drawn up in the year after the life sentence has become irrevocable. The Prisons Act provides for the right of (complaint and) appeal against decisions related to [a] detention and reintegration plan and the activities to be included therein, even before the end of the above-mentioned 25-year term, and [against] decisions regarding the granting of reintegration leave. The question of whether detention in an individual case complies with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention is addressed in this post-sentencing judicial process. 3.6.     In view of the content of the [Advisory Board Decree and other implementing legislation], and taking into account what has been considered under [paragraph]   3.5 with regard to the assessment possibilities of the civil judge and the post-sentencing judge in the phase of execution, the Supreme Court is of the opinion that Dutch law now provides for a system of review on the basis of which, in appropriate cases, a life sentence may be reduced, so that the imposition of a life sentence is not in itself contrary to Article   3 of the Convention ... [I]f at any time it should be established that a life sentence is never reduced in practice, even under the new system of review, this will certainly be a significant factor in determining whether the imposition or continued execution [of such a sentence] is compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. However, that question is not currently under discussion.” 15 .     In the light of the above, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, as a result of which the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 19 January 2015 (see paragraph 8 above) became final. B.    Mr Remmers (application no. 55483/19) 16 .     The applicant was arrested and detained in Morocco in 2007. On 22   January 2008 he was extradited to the Netherlands to be prosecuted in the context of the “Passage” investigation, which concerned eleven defendants accused of involvement in one or more murders (see also paragraphs 24 and 34 below). He has been in custody in the Netherlands since then. 17.     On 29 January 2013 the Amsterdam Regional Court convicted the applicant of complicity in soliciting murder, multiple counts of complicity in attempted murder, multiple counts of complicity in murder, and participation in a criminal organisation. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. 18.     On 8 February 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court. 19 .     On 29 June 2017 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of complicity in soliciting murder, multiple counts of complicity in murder, two counts of complicity in attempted murder, being an accessory to murder, and participation in a criminal organisation (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2497). He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The court found no grounds to rule that the applicable time frame and review criteria in the pardon procedure were unforeseeable or otherwise incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant could realistically expect that the execution of a life sentence offered a prospect of rehabilitation in accordance with the requirements of the Convention, and adequate safeguards were in place for the development of reintegration activities which ensured that the results of these activities would be of substantive importance in the review of the continued execution of the sentence.   As a final observation, the court noted that its conclusion was without prejudice to the future application of the review procedure, which had been in force for only a very limited amount of time. 20 .     On 18 December 2017 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, submitting that the imposition of a life sentence was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. 21 .     On 18 December 2018 the Advocate-General at the Supreme Court recommended that the applicant’s appeal on points of law be dismissed (ECLI:NL:PHR:2018:1389). It was not considered unreasonable for admission to the reintegration phase to depend on the development of the prisoner in question. During the first twenty-five years of their imprisonment, life-sentence prisoners worked on their personal development, as well as on restoration vis ‑ à-vis their networks, victims (and/or victims’ next of kin) and/or society as a whole, and by doing so, they could show that the continued execution of the sentence no longer served any legitimate purpose. Moreover, social rehabilitation activities were set out in a personalised sentence plan, which offered opportunities to have the first part of the life sentence proceed in accordance with the “progression principle” prescribed by the Court. Life ‑ sentence prisoners could be granted incidental leave, and life-sentence prisoners admitted to the reintegration phase could be granted reintegration leave; a denial of leave could be challenged in court. It remained to be seen whether a two-year period was sufficient in practice to pursue reintegration activities leading to a pardon, and the review and leave conditions as laid down in domestic legislation and case-law were deemed to be sufficiently clear and objective. 22 .     On 23 April 2019 the Supreme Court held that the applicant’s life sentence was not incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:600). Its reasoning included the following: “10.3.1.     In view of [the entry into force of the Advisory Board Decree and other implementing legislation and the judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 December 2017 (see paragraph 14 above)], the complaint on points of law fails in so far as it argues that the imposition of a life sentence violates Article 3 of the Convention. Dutch law provides for a system of review on the basis of which, in appropriate cases, a life sentence may be reduced, [therefore] the imposition of a life sentence is not contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Contrary to what the complaint on points of law alleges, it cannot be said that it is insufficiently clear to the defendant what criteria are applied in this review procedure. After all, in the ex officio assessment of the possibility of a pardon or the assessment of a request for a pardon submitted after [that ex officio assessment], the question is whether, in view of the behaviour and development of the convicted person during his [or her] detention, and taking into account the other criteria mentioned in Article 4 §   4 of the Advisory Board Decree, including the risk of reoffending ( recidiverisico ) and the risk of offending ( delictgevaarlijkheid ), continued execution of the life sentence is no longer justified. The complaint that it is uncertain whether the accused [will be] offered sufficient rehabilitation-oriented activities during his detention to be eligible for a reduction of [his] life sentence in the above-mentioned review, and [that this is] therefore in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, also fails. The fact that decisions on the provision of activities are only taken during the execution of a life sentence and that, to that extent, when the sentence is imposed it is to some degree uncertain what form such provision will take, does not entail that the imposition of a life sentence violates Article 3 of the Convention. The mere circumstance that in the first phases of execution these activities focus in particular on resocialisation, and that reintegration activities aimed specifically at a return to society, including leave, are included only after a positive decision by the Advisory Board, does not alter this. 10.3.2.     ... The manner in which the new review system will be applied in practice – both in general, and specifically with regard to the execution of the sentence imposed on the defendant – [will become clear] in the future. However, the inevitable uncertainties arising from that reality do not deprive the imposition of a life sentence of its compatibility with Article 3 of the Convention, in particular ... because every person sentenced to life imprisonment can submit [his or her views] on the actual manner of execution of his [or her] sentence to the post-sentencing and civil courts. [Those courts] ensure that such execution is in accordance with the guarantees arising from Article   3 of the Convention, including as regards the review of the continued execution of the sentence and the activities to be offered to the sentenced person in connection with that review. Lastly, it is important to note that if at any point it is established that, in practice, life sentences are never reduced, even under the new review system, this circumstance will certainly be a significant factor in answering the questions that will arise concerning the compatibility with Article 3 of the Convention of the imposition of a life sentence in new cases on the one hand, and continued execution in cases where a life sentence has already been imposed on the other hand. However, those questions are not currently at issue.” 23.     In view of the above, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, as a result of which the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 29 June 2017 (see paragraph 19 above) became final. C.    Mr Soerel (application no. 55021/19) 24 .     The applicant was arrested on 21 September 2010 in the context of the “Passage” investigation (see paragraph 16 above). He was detained on remand until 12 April 2012. 25.     On 29 January 2013 the Amsterdam Regional Court convicted the applicant of possession of a forged or falsified travel document and money laundering. The court sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. 26.     On 25 February 2013 the Public Prosecution Service lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court. 27.     On 29 June 2015 the applicant was detained pending the proceedings on appeal. He has been in custody since then. 28 .     On 29 June 2017 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of two counts of complicity in soliciting murder, participation in a criminal organisation and multiple counts of possession of a forged or falsified travel document (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2496). The court sentenced him to life imprisonment (for its reasoning on the compatibility of a life sentence with Article 3 of the Convention, see paragraph 19 above). 29.     On 2 July 2018 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, submitting that the imposition of a life sentence was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. 30 .     On 18 December 2018 the Advocate-General at the Supreme Court recommended that the applicant’s appeal on points of law be dismissed (ECLI:NL:PHR:2018:1390). Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 December 2017 (see paragraph 14 above), the Advocate-General considered that the existing legal conditions and criteria for review of a life sentence were objective, foreseeable and fixed in advance, and that further application of the new review mechanism would be a significant factor in determining whether it continued to offer, in practice, a realistic prospect of release as required under Article 3 of the Convention. 31 .     On 23 April 2019 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:601 – for its reasoning on the compatibility of a life sentence with Article 3 of the Convention, see paragraph 22 above), as a result of which the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 29 June 2017 (see paragraph 28 above) became final. D.    Mr Rasnabe (application no. 56209/19) 32 .     The applicant is a Moroccan national and held a Dutch residence permit from 12 June 1981 to 21 April 2022. On the latter date the responsible Deputy Minister revoked the applicant’s residence permit with retroactive effect from 1 April 1993, issued a return decision with immediate effect, and imposed a ten-year entry ban. The applicant did not lodge an objection against that decision. 33.     On 22 June 2006 the applicant was arrested and detained in Spain under a European Arrest Warrant which had been issued by the Dutch authorities in respect of a conviction in 2004 for drugs-related offences. Following his transfer to the Netherlands, the applicant remained in custody in execution of his sentence from 14   August 2006 until 30 October 2007 and from 13 November 2007 until 19   February 2008. 34 .     Meanwhile, on 30 October 2007 the applicant was arrested on murder charges in the context of the “Passage” investigation (see paragraph   16 above). In this connection, the applicant was in custody from 30   October 2007 until 12 November 2007 and has been in custody since 19   February 2008. 35.     On 29 January 2013 the Amsterdam Regional Court convicted the applicant of multiple counts of complicity in murder, and complicity in attempted murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. 36.     On 30 January 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court. 37 .     On 29 June 2017 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of multiple counts of complicity in murder, being an accessory to murder and complicity in attempted murder (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2618). The court sentenced him to life imprisonment (for its reasoning on the compatibility of a life sentence with Article 3 of the Convention, see paragraph 19 above). 38.     On 15 December 2017 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, submitting that the imposition of a life sentence was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention, also in the light of his status as foreign national without a residence permit. The applicant alleged that his status prevented him from pursuing social rehabilitation and reintegration activities aimed at a return to society. 39.     On 18 December 2018 the Advocate-General at the Supreme Court recommended that the applicant’s appeal on points of law be dismissed (ECLI:NL:PHR:2018:1386 – for the Advocate-General’s reasoning on the compatibility of a life sentence with Article 3 of the Convention, see paragraphs 21 and 30 above). The applicant’s status as a foreign national without a residence permit did not lead to a different conclusion. In this connection, the Advocate-General noted that rehabilitation activities did not relate to a return to society, and that the applicant could be offered tailor ‑ made ( maatwerk ) reintegration activities aimed at a return to (any) society if the Advisory Board were to issue a positive opinion after twenty-five years of detention. 40 .     On 23 April 2019 the Supreme Court gave judgment in the applicant’s case (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:602 – for its reasoning on the compatibility of a life sentence with Article 3 of the Convention, see paragraph 22 above). In respect of the applicant’s complaint that his status as a foreign national without a residence permit precluded any rehabilitation and reintegration activities, the court held: “6.3.2.     This complaint fails, as the lack of that residence status does not prevent the application of ... the system of review of the continued execution of the life sentence and the associated guarantees. After all, the lack of that residence status does not make it impossible to offer activities aimed at rehabilitation, nor does it prevent the granting of a pardon from the outset. Another important point here is that ... the question of whether the course of detention of a life-sentence prisoner complies with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, even if he [or she] does not have valid residence status, can be submitted to the post-sentencing and civil courts.” 41.     In the light of the above, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, as a result of which the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 29 June 2017 (see paragraph 37 above) became final. E.     Mr Admilson Richter (application no. 59806/19) 42 .     The applicant and his brother (see application no. 59814/19 at paragraphs 49-55 below) were arrested on 3 March 2014. They have been in custody since then. 43 .     On 24 November 2015 the North Netherlands Regional Court convicted the applicant of two counts of complicity in murder and aggravated manslaughter. Referring to Vinter and Others (cited above), the Regional Court held that the pardon procedure in place at the time of the judgment offered little prospect in practice of a reduction in a life sentence, which was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. It was for this reason that it decided not to impose one. The court sentenced the applicant to the maximum determinate sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment and imposed an order for his placement at the disposal of the Government with confinement in a custodial clinic ( terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege ). 44.     On 7 and 8 December 2015 respectively, the Public Prosecution Service and the applicant lodged appeals against the Regional Court’s judgment. 45 .     On 15 March 2018 the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of three counts of complicity in murder (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:2456). Like the first-instance court, the Court of Appeal found that the severity and extent of the applicant’s personality or psychiatric disorder had not limited his freedom of choice to such an extent as to justify a defence of diminished responsibility. The applicant could thus be held entirely responsible for the offences. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 December 2017 (see paragraph   14 above), the Court of Appeal held that the review mechanism now provided for by Dutch law meant that the imposition of a life sentence was not incompatible with Article   3 of the Convention. The court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment. 46.     On 13 November 2018 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, submitting that the imposition of a life sentence was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention, also taking into account his personality or psychiatric disorder. 47 .     On 19 March 2019 the Advocate-General at the Supreme Court recommended that the applicant’s appeal on points of law be dismissed (ECLI:NL:PHR:2019:255). Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment of 19   December 2017 (see paragraph   14 above), the Advocate-General submitted that the Dutch review mechanism was not incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention: “3.5.6.     ... [I]n addition to possible reintegration leave, reintegration activities consist of supporting the convicted person in obtaining a valid identity document, shelter immediately after [his or her] release from detention, income from work or (temporary) social benefits to be able to provide for initial living expenses after [his or her] release from detention and, if work is not available, a form of daytime activities, insight into debt problems and ... (continued) care and health insurance. 3.5.7.     To me, it makes sense that this [reintegration] support is not offered during the first 25 years of detention, because it forms, as it were, the capstone ( sluitstuk ) of the review procedure in which the Advisory Board must advise under Article 7 of the Advisory Board Decree, and ... is also, by its nature, linked to leaving the institution. The fact that a life-sentence prisoner must also be able to leave the institution during the first 25 years of his [or her] detention cannot be derived from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights ... 3.5.8.     ... The Supreme Court notes [in its judgment of 19 December 2017] that [during the first twenty-five years of detention] the convicted person must be offered activities, including in the form of work, training and behavioural interventions, which enable him [or her] to develop during detention. The Supreme Court [has] held that the review mechanism does not exclude such activities, and that appropriate medical and psychiatric care must also be offered. Decisions in this regard can be assessed in the context of the complaints and appeals regulations of the Prisons Act, where the course of detention can be assessed against the requirements of Article   3 of the Convention. 3.5.9.     ... The written grounds of appeal on points of law do not disclose any facts or circumstances from which it could be deduced that what the Supreme Court noted in its judgment about resocialisation activities and psychiatric care is not carried out in practice, or that the psychological and/or psychiatric care [provided] during the first phase of the execution of a life sentence is inadequate. Nor can I discern, in the explanation of the grounds of appeal on points of law, any facts or circumstances which indicate that the situation has changed since the Supreme Court’s judgment ... to such an extent that a life sentence (nevertheless) violates Article   3 of the Convention on account of the system ‘ de facto ’ offering no real prospect of release. 3.5.10.     The written grounds of appeal on points of law state that the possibility of reintegration should be offered well before the time of the first review, so that release is possible earlier than as provided for in the current regulation. However, I fear this is reading more into the Strasbourg case-law ... than can be inferred from it. 3.5.11.     ... The Supreme Court was right ... to consider, at paragraph 3.6 of its judgment of 19 December 2017, that it may possibly be established at some point that a life sentence will never be shortened in practice even under the new regime, and that the question of whether execution is compatible with Article 3 of the Convention will then have to be decided again. In my opinion, the current regulations offer sufficient (procedural) tools ( handvatten ) through the post-sentencing complaints procedure and the civil court[s] to raise or bring this to light [a footnote refers to paragraphs 3.5.4-3.6 of the judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 December 2017]. In the present case, the Court of Appeal, referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court, therefore considered that this could only be judged after some time had passed, because the practical application of the new regulations would show whether practice was in line with the requirements arising from Article 3 of the Convention [a footnote refers to, inter alia , the Advocate-General’s opinion as reflected in paragraph 21 above]. ... 3.6.9.     [The] case [of Petukhov v. Ukraine (No. 2) , no. 41216/13, 12 March 2019] provides insight into how the European Court of Human Rights applies the criteria formulated most recently in Hutchinson [cited above]. In my opinion, no arguments can be derived from [ Petukhov (No. 2) ] that the Dutch regulations would be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the foreseeability and clarity of the procedure, the requirement to give reasons for decisions relating to the continuation or reduction of a life sentence, the requirements that can be set in relation to the detention regime in which the person sentenced to life [imprisonment] finds himself or herself, and the possibility of judicial review. The Dutch mechanism meets the requirements that can be derived from the review carried out by the European Court of Human Rights in Petukhov [ (No.2) ], at least on paper and thus de jure . Whether this is also the case de facto remains to be seen, as noted above. I believe it is too early to pass judgment on this at this stage.” 48 .     On 14 May 2019 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law because it could not lead to the quashing of the impugned judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:720). On the basis of section 81(1) o