Treatment in detention

What is good treatment?

The Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming, RSJ) takes a broader view of treatment than just contact between staff and people in detention. It also includes care, activities, safety, legal protection and preparation for returning to society. The Custodial Institutions Agency (Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen, DJI) uses the term more narrowly: mainly to describe personal contact with detainees.

According to the Council (RSJ), simply complying with legal rules is not enough. A sentence or measure must also be carried out humanely and decently. For this reason, in 2012 the Council (RSJ) formulated a basic principle with eight supporting principles. These are guiding principles, not all of which are directly enforceable legal standards.

The basic principle is that good treatment must always be pursued for every person in detention. This requires attention to the individual, including when an unexpected situation does not fit neatly within the rules.

The eight principles of good treatment

1. Decent and professional contact

Staff should treat you without prejudice and take the situation into account. They may set boundaries and address your behaviour. They must remain professional when doing so, even when tensions rise.

Your own attitude also affects the living environment. But if you are not yet motivated to take part in activities or a reintegration programme, this does not justify treating you with less respect. Safety and fairness must go hand in hand with support for returning to society.

2. Future prospects, return to society and aftercare

Temporary deprivation of liberty should include preparation for life afterwards. Rehabilitation means helping you take part in society again. This involves personal development, addressing problems and limiting the harm caused by detention, such as losing supportive relationships.

The government must make efforts to maintain your connection with society and enable proper aftercare. The Council (RSJ) gives placement in the region where someone will live after detention as an example. A different placement may be better if, for example, more suitable treatment is available there.

Detention can also profoundly change how you see your future. Spiritual care can help with the questions and uncertainty this creates.

3. A lawful and explainable way of carrying out sentences and measures

Deprivation of liberty and restrictions must have a sound basis in law. You must be able to find out which rules apply and why they are being applied. Decisions must not be arbitrary.

Proportionality and subsidiarity play a role here. This means that an intervention must be proportionate to its purpose, and consideration must be given to whether a less intrusive approach is possible. The government is responsible for treatment as a whole; the prison governor is responsible for decisions about individual detainees.

4. Meaningful daily activities

A daily programme must offer both structure and variety. A varied range of activities can contribute to development, independence and a return to society.

It is not just about filling time. You must also have the opportunity to learn to look after yourself and stand up for yourself during and after detention. Staff have a role in encouraging this.

5. Physical and psychological safety

The government must protect your physical and psychological safety. After an incident, it must be able to show what it has done to safeguard that safety.

Some people in detention need extra protection or support, such as people with an intellectual disability or sex offenders. According to the Council (RSJ), a confidential adviser and psychological support can contribute to a safe environment without violence between people.

6. Taking the individual into account

Good treatment requires an individual approach: attention to your interests, needs and circumstances. This also applies to disciplinary punishments and measures to maintain order. It is not only the breach of the rules that matters, but also who you are and the background to your behaviour.

An exception to a general rule is not automatically unfair. If the same exception would also apply to another person in comparable circumstances, it need not be arbitrary.

One example is the Council's (RSJ) ruling of 16 January 2017, 16/2399/GA. A transgender detainee who was transitioning wanted to shower alone because of her vulnerable position. It had not been shown that this was impossible. The Council (RSJ) overturned the earlier ruling and awarded her € 50.

7. No more restrictions than necessary

Deprivation of liberty is itself the punishment. Under this principle, unnecessary additional restrictions must not be imposed on top of it. The severity of the sentence should be reflected in its length, not in an unnecessarily harsh regime.

This is consistent with normalisation: apart from the deprivation of liberty, life inside the institution should resemble ordinary life in society as closely as possible. You still have a personal life within the prison walls.

8. Remaining a citizen, even in detention

Detention does not take away your status as a citizen. The principle of retaining your rights as a citizen is consistent with Article 15(4) of the Constitution (Grondwet). This includes freedom of religion, voting rights, contact with the outside world and access to legal protection.

The institution must inform you about ways to challenge decisions and give you the opportunity to use them.

The prison system: rules and points to consider

The principle of minimum restrictions is consistent with Article 2(3) of the Penitentiary Principles Act (Penitentiaire beginselenwet, Pbw). This principle requires attention to whether restrictions are necessary and to individual circumstances.

In an advisory opinion of 3 April 2025, the Council (RSJ) expressed concerns about proposed general restrictions with little scope for an individual approach. It referred to the expansion to 60 places in the Extra Secure Institution (Extra Beveiligde Inrichting, EBI) and 126 places in Intensive Supervision Units (Afdelingen voor Intensief Toezicht, AIT). According to the Council (RSJ), general measures risk imposing more restrictions than safety requires, at the expense of humane treatment.

Safety in interactions with others also deserves attention. The Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) commissioned research into Nieuwersluis Prison (PI Nieuwersluis), Ter Peel Prison (PI Ter Peel) and Zwolle Prison (PI Zwolle). Leiden University's research report was published on 5 February 2025.

Complaining about treatment in the prison system

A decision or conduct in practice?

Article 60 of the Penitentiary Principles Act (Penitentiaire beginselenwet, Pbw) allows you to lodge a complaint (beklag) about a decision concerning you that was made by or on behalf of the prison governor. A rude remark or other conduct by a staff member is not automatically such a decision.

Complaints about treatment are therefore often declared inadmissible. This means that the complaints committee (beklagcommissie) does not consider the substance of the complaint. It does not mean that the committee approves of how you were treated.

According to the Council (RSJ), purely factual conduct — what someone does, without it involving a decision that can be challenged through a complaint (beklag) — does not fall within Article 60 of the Penitentiary Principles Act (Penitentiaire beginselenwet, Pbw). Conduct when carrying out a decision, on the other hand, may be open to a complaint (beklag). In the ruling of 23 March 2017, 16/3844/GA, staff conduct in the performance of their duties was, in principle, attributed to the prison governor.

This does not make every act open to a complaint (beklag). For example, in the ruling of 13 April 2023, 22/27533/GA, the Council (RSJ) classified the alleged touching of a genital area as purely factual conduct.

Serious and structural failures in care

On 1 September 2023, the Council (RSJ) clarified how complaints about the prison governor's care duties are assessed. This can also include how staff treat you while carrying out their duties.

You must have a sufficient interest in bringing these complaints. In principle, this is the case if the prison governor persistently and substantially fails to fulfil their care duties towards you. There must therefore be a significant failing that is not merely an isolated occurrence.

Whether your complaint is admissible is assessed on the basis of what you put forward. Only when the substance of the complaint is considered is it investigated whether the alleged failing actually exists. If it does not, the complaint is unfounded.

A complaint about a single late response to a non-urgent cell call was declared inadmissible. The rulings of 1 September 2023, 23/28531/GA and 23/31460/GA, are relevant here.

The principles of good treatment can help support your complaint, but do not guarantee that its substance will be considered. Research from 2021 showed that these principles were rarely used in decisions on complaints (beklag) and appeals.

Examples from complaint decisions

The outcome depends on the specific conduct and the supporting information:

• Verbal abuse by staff: this was regarded as factual conduct, not as a decision by the prison governor. The complaint was inadmissible (23 January 2012, KC 2012/064).
• Filming during a hearing in a cell: in these circumstances, permission from prison management alone was not enough. Because of the serious invasion of privacy, the detainee's consent was required. The complaint was upheld and compensation of € 10 was awarded (20 December 2013, KC 2014/011).
• A cancelled appointment with the psychologist: according to the complainant, a prison work supervisor had cancelled her appointment during working hours. The documents did not sufficiently establish when the appointment was scheduled or why it did not go ahead. That part of the complaint was unfounded; the part concerning how the staff member treated her was inadmissible (4 May 2021, KC 2021/023).
• A delay in a programme: the complaint about treatment by a staff member of the Reducing Reoffending programme (Terugdringen Recidive) was inadmissible. The part about the delay was unfounded, because it had not been sufficiently established that the staff member's conduct had caused the delay (25 March 2013, KC 2013/031).

Mediation through the monthly visiting commissioner

Mediation may be suitable for problems with communication or personal interactions. You can raise your concerns with the monthly visiting commissioner (maandcommissaris) of the Supervisory Committee (Commissie van Toezicht).

Since the introduction of the Miscellaneous Amendments Act (Veegwet) on 1 July 2021, a formally regulated form of mediation has also been available. Informal mediation by the monthly visiting commissioner (maandcommissaris) remains possible.

Mediation can only work well if the prison governor's representative knows about the problem and has enough scope to agree on solutions. Sometimes, agreements about a single incident are not enough, and changes are also needed to prevent it from happening again.

Court-ordered forensic psychiatric care: treatment and personal interactions

A court-ordered forensic psychiatric measure (tbs-maatregel) requires appropriate attention to treatment. According to the Council (RSJ), the way the measure is carried out does not meet the principle of lawful implementation if no treatment, or insufficient treatment, is offered. A measure therefore has a different character from a punishment.

The Act on the Principles Governing the Care of Persons Subject to a Hospital Order (Beginselenwet verpleging ter beschikking gestelden, Bvt) also contains the principle of minimum restrictions.

Not every complaint about personal interactions in forensic psychiatric detention (tbs) can be addressed through the formal complaints procedure (beklag). In a case concerning treatment by staff and fellow patients, and the receipt of mail, the complaints committee (beklagcommissie) ruled that treatment by staff was not a decision that could be challenged under Articles 56 and 57 of the Act on the Principles Governing the Care of Persons Subject to a Hospital Order (Beginselenwet verpleging ter beschikking gestelden, Bvt). The complaint (beklag) was inadmissible (14 January 2010, KC 2010/010).

What does this mean for you?

You can expect respectful treatment, even if you struggle with the rules or are not yet taking part in activities. If you need extra protection or an individual adjustment, explain which personal circumstances make this necessary.

If you want to raise a problem, be as specific as possible about:

• what happened and who was involved;
• whether it was a single incident or a recurring problem;
• how it affects you;
• which decision or failing you are challenging;
• what solution you are seeking.

A complaint about a decision requires a different assessment from dissatisfaction with a staff member's tone. For recurring failures in care, the key issue is how serious and persistent the problem is. For problems in day-to-day contact, mediation can be a useful option, even if a formal complaint (beklag) is not possible.

This page draws on the expertise of Mr. S.P.C. (Stan) Broekmans, a specialist in detention law at Hameleers Antonides Advocaten. Do you have a question about your own situation? Please get in touch; an initial assessment is free.

Other topics

• Arrestant detainees
• Belongings
• Camera surveillance
• Compensation
• Complaints procedure (beklagprocedure)
• Compulsory treatment