GVM measures

GVM in the prison system

A new circular on GVM has applied since 1 November 2025. A circular sets out policy rules for implementation. It replaces the policy of 8 July 2021 and distinguishes between two groups:

• Risk-category prisoners (Risicogedetineerden, RG): prisoners with identified security risks who may need extra supervision.
• High-risk prisoners (Hoogrisicogedetineerden, HRG): prisoners placed in a special prison or unit with enhanced or maximum security because of high security risks.

Several separate decisions are involved: setting the risk profile, placement in a prison or unit, and imposing specific supervision measures. These decisions are not all made by the same official.

When can you be classified as a risk-category prisoner?

The following circumstances may, separately or together, lead to RG status:

• a risk of escape or being freed by people outside the prison;
• suspicions that someone is continuing criminal activities from prison;
• a risk of a targeted killing or threats, either directed at the prisoner or coming from the prisoner;
• a risk of spreading extremist views;
• behaviour that undermines the authority of management and staff;
• unauthorised contact with victims, bereaved relatives, staff working in criminal justice or sentence enforcement, or the media, and visibility on social media;
• suspicion of, or a conviction for, an offence that has caused major public outrage and unrest and seriously shocked the legal order.

The policy therefore also concerns protecting the prisoner themselves. It is not only the risk of someone harming others that may play a role.

The individual assessment

The assessment takes the prisoner’s life history into account. It looks at three areas:

• Motivation: including the remaining sentence, any further sentences, deportation, the person’s social environment, criminal history and signs of continued criminal activity. Previous escape attempts, threats, extremist statements and unwanted contacts may also be considered.
• Means: for example, money and a network that could turn a risk into reality.
• Power: the person’s position, role and status within a criminal organisation or network. Their position within the prison may also provide indications of this.

A general reference to criminal activity cannot replace this individual assessment.

Who decides your risk profile and placement?

The selection officer (selectiefunctionaris), GRIP and ORG

The selection officer (selectiefunctionaris) sets a risk profile when you are first placed in detention. Article 22 of the Regulations on the Selection, Placement and Transfer of Prisoners (Regeling selectie, plaatsing en overplaatsing van gedetineerden, Rspog) provides the basis for this. Information from sources including the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie) and the Prisoner Criminal Intelligence Information Point (Gedetineerden Recherche Informatie Punt, GRIP) is used.

GRIP is part of the National Unit of the police. It gathers information from various sources and links the information flows of the police, the Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) and the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie).

The national Risk Prisoners Consultation Group (Overleg Risico-gedetineerden, ORG) assesses both the risks posed by a prisoner and the risks to which that person is exposed. It advises on the risk profile, a suitable prison and necessary supervision measures. Undesirable combinations of prisoners are also taken into account.

In addition to a chair and secretary, the ORG includes representatives of the National Intelligence and Security Bureau (Landelijk Bureau Inlichtingen en Veiligheid), DIZ, GRIP and the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie), as well as two governors of enhanced-security or maximum-security prisons. The group works on behalf of the GW/VB divisional directors.

The selection officer (selectiefunctionaris) decides the risk profile on behalf of the minister, weighing the interests in each individual case. Placement takes place under Articles 24 and 25 Rspog.

Where are RG and HRG held?

RG status does not rule out staying in a standard-security prison or a low-security unit. Extra supervision within that prison or unit may be sufficient.

HRG are placed in a special setting, with facilities and security tailored to the risks. These include:

• an Intensive Supervision Unit (Afdeling voor Intensief Toezicht, AIT);
• a unit for prisoners who are difficult to manage (afdeling voor beheersproblematische gedetineerden, BPG);
• a terrorism unit (terroristenafdeling, TA);
• a designated part of a Prison Psychiatric Centre (Penitentiair Psychiatrisch Centrum, PPC);
• the Maximum Security Institution (Extra Beveiligde Inrichting, EBI).

The prisoner must meet the placement criteria for the prison or unit concerned. The selection officer (selectiefunctionaris) decides, where appropriate after advice from the ORG and the AIT/EBI selection advisory committee. After placement, supervision of HRG is discussed in consultation groups other than the ORG.

Which GVM measures may the governor impose?

The governor decides on the specific measures. The ORG’s advice carries considerable weight, but does not remove the governor’s duty to make an independent assessment.

These powers come from legislation including the Prisons Act (Penitentiaire beginselenwet, Pbw). Article 3 Pbw concerns responsibility for managing the prison. Article 5(3) Pbw gives the governor the power to issue orders to maintain order and safety.

Possible measures include:

• supervision of contact with the outside world;
• refusing unsupervised visits;
• placement in a particular unit;
• finding a prisoner unsuitable for a shared cell;
• restrictions on freedom of movement within the prison;
• measures to maintain order.

The governor must ensure a coherent set of necessary measures, their implementation and reporting on how they work.

Hearing your views, giving reasons and written notification

The decision-making process is subject to safeguards including those in Chapter Ten Pbw. The governor must hear your views beforehand: you must have the opportunity to state your position before the decision is made. Where the law requires it, the decision must contain convincing reasons. You will receive written notification of the measures imposed.

The assessment must address your personal situation. Relevant factors include the connection between the risk and the chosen restrictions, your behaviour and the actual circumstances in the prison. The governor must also respond to the substance of your objections in complaint (beklag) or appeal proceedings.

Reassessment and transfer

RG are reassessed by the ORG after 3, 6 or 12 months. This review considers whether the measures are working, whether further monitoring is needed and whether the measures should continue. Separate consultation groups exist for HRG in the AIT, TA, BPG, PPC and EBI.

Is a monthly review mandatory?

Different rulings on monthly reviews were issued under the previous policy. On 5 May 2022, a complaints committee (beklagcommissie) ruled that, following the 2021 policy change, the governor was no longer required to carry out a transparent monthly balancing of interests and to hear the prisoner’s views or inform them in writing for that purpose (KC2022/015).

Another complaints committee (beklagcommissie) reached a different conclusion on 1 August 2022. It found that case law still required a transparent monthly balancing of interests. The failure to hear the prisoner’s views and provide written information led to the complaint being upheld, without compensation (KC2022/023). These older rulings must be distinguished from the current reassessment by the ORG.

A different prison must make its own decision

According to the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ), adopting existing GVM measures after a transfer is a new decision, even if the measures remain unchanged. The new governor must hear your views beforehand and independently weigh your interests. You can lodge a complaint (beklag) against that decision (RSJ, 3 February 2023, 22/26660/GA).

Complaining about GVM measures

No objection or appeal is available against the selection officer’s (selectiefunctionaris) decision to grant RG or HRG status. However, you can lodge a complaint (beklag) against the governor’s specific supervision measures under Article 60 Pbw. An appeal concerning those measures is also possible.

The central question in the review is whether the governor has weighed the relevant interests and whether the restrictions are reasonable and fair. This means the measures must be justified in light of the actual circumstances. The Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) has upheld complaints and granted requests to suspend measures where, for example, there was no individual assessment or the prisoner’s views were not heard beforehand.

Relevant rulings are RSJ, 1 August 2024, 23/38160/GA and 23/38229/GA, and RSJ, 8 April 2026, 25/46170/GA. When a complaint about supervision measures is upheld, the appeals committee usually awards €50 in compensation. This amount is not guaranteed.

What does case law show?

A threat does not need to have visibly resulted in an incident. On 19 March 2025, an extension was upheld because GRIP information still indicated an existing but not directly visible threat. The prisoner’s views had been heard beforehand, and the governor had independently weighed security interests against his interests (KC2025/012).

The assessment may have a different outcome on appeal. In KC2023/025, the complaints committee (beklagcommissie) found that information about the risk of a targeted killing was insufficiently specific and awarded €100. The appeals committee found that a real, ongoing danger was plausible, despite the absence of a specific danger known to the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie). The governor’s appeal succeeded.

It must be possible to scrutinise the assessment. In KC2019/008, there was insufficient insight into the GRIP information, the governor’s position and the information provided by the prisoner. The complaint was upheld and €35 in compensation was awarded. Older rulings about segregation and extensions also emphasise the need for an individual assessment recorded in writing.

An internal risk list does not, on its own, justify restrictions. Extra cell inspections could not be based solely on inclusion in an internal GBR list without additional reasons (KC2017/030).

Protection may also require changes to visiting arrangements. A refusal to allow individual visits in a separate room was insufficiently supported by reasons. The prisoner had not received regular visits because of fear. His complaint was upheld, with €150 in compensation (KC2021/019).

Going to the civil court about GVM status

In several cases, prisoners have asked the civil court to remove them from the GVM list. Review in interim relief proceedings is limited: the court assesses whether the decision could reasonably have been made.

In ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:6674, inclusion on the list had to be reversed. The claim that the prisoner had spent a long period in hiding was insufficiently supported: the authorities knew his address abroad, and the prisoner used his own name and passport. Nor had it been shown to be plausible that he had used someone else’s phone card to make calls more than once.

In ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:2169, the status was maintained. Information about escape and breakout plans, a criminal network and financial resources supported the decision. The fact that there had been no incidents for two years did not mean that the risk had disappeared.

Other rulings provide further guidance:

• A threat of revenge can be a ground: danger to the prisoner themselves can constitute a risk to society (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:5403).
• Foreign information can be taken into account: information from foreign authorities initially justified inclusion on the list, but could not support it indefinitely (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:8014).
• Risk is not the same as proven criminal activity: specific indications of continued criminal activity may be sufficient. This arose in a case involving digital communication devices that had been found and contacts made from prison (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:15920 and the Court of Appeal ruling from 2020).

What does this mean for you?

Focus your objections on the specific decision and its effects on your daily life:

• Check the written notification. Which measures apply, and which risk is each measure intended to reduce?
• Explain your personal circumstances. Describe your behaviour, any incorrect information and the effects on visits and family contact.
• Pay attention to whether your views are heard. Your position must be capable of being taken into account before the decision, not only after the outcome has been settled.
• If measures are extended, ask why they are still necessary. The absence of incidents does not automatically end the measures, but continuing them must be supported by an appropriate balancing of interests.
• After a transfer, check whether a new decision has been made. The new governor cannot simply continue the measures automatically.

Always distinguish between your risk status and the measures imposed by the governor. Different options apply when challenging them.

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