Life imprisonment

When can a life sentence be imposed?

Article 10 of the Dutch Criminal Code allows life imprisonment. It is the most severe sentence in the Netherlands. It can be imposed for offences including deliberately killing someone, offences against state security, offences against the general safety of people and terrorist offences. Relevant provisions include Article 92 onwards, Article 108, Article 168 and Article 282b of the Criminal Code.

Life imprisonment is excluded for young people aged between 12 and 18. On 31 December 2025, there were 65 life-sentenced prisoners in the Netherlands: 49 whose convictions were final and 16 whose convictions were not yet final. A final conviction is one that can no longer be challenged through ordinary appeals.

There must be a prospect of release

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. According to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), life imprisonment is not prohibited in itself. However, a sentence without a genuine prospect of possible release is prohibited.

In Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom in 2013, the ECtHR set requirements for reviewing life sentences:

• From the time of conviction, there must be a real prospect of a possible return to society, both under the rules and in practice.
• No later than after 25 years, there must be an assessment of whether personal changes and progress towards social rehabilitation mean that continued detention no longer serves a legitimate purpose of punishment.
• The assessment must be based on up-to-date information, objective criteria set in advance and sufficient procedural safeguards.

Social rehabilitation means working towards being able to function in society. The purposes of punishment include retribution, preventing further offences and rehabilitation. The weight given to these purposes may change during a long period of detention. States have some discretion in how they design their review procedures.

Healthcare must enable personal development

In Murray v. the Netherlands in 2016, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 ECHR. Murray had not received treatment for his psychological or psychiatric problems. As a result, he had no genuine opportunity to make progress, and his pardon application had no prospect of success from the outset.

The government does not have to guarantee recovery, but it must provide necessary medical care and opportunities for rehabilitation. Article 2:6 of the Policy Rules on the Enforcement of Criminal and Administrative Decisions provides for an assessment by the Netherlands Institute of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (NIFP) in the first year after a life sentence becomes final, to properly assess the person’s care needs.

Reviews in the Netherlands: 25 and 28 years

Since 2017, there has been a procedure with several review stages. Permission to work towards returning to society is not the same as a decision to release someone.

After 25 years: assessment for admission to reintegration activities

The period starts at the beginning of pre-trial detention. During the first 25 years, the programme consists of ordinary prison activities, such as sport and possibly work. During that period, there is no right to reintegration activities or leave aimed at reintegration.

After 25 years, the Advisory Board on Life-Sentenced Prisoners advises on whether someone may begin activities aimed at a possible return to society. It considers:

• the danger associated with the offence committed;
• the risk of further offences;
• behaviour and personal development during detention;
• the impact on victims and bereaved families.

This assessment includes observation at the Pieter Baan Centre. The examination focuses on matters including personality development, possible disorders and the risk of violent behaviour. The interests of victims and bereaved families are also examined.

The independent Advisory Board consists of a chair and four members: two with a legal background, a psychologist and a psychiatrist. It also advises on suitable activities and follow-up reviews. The State Secretary decides on admission on behalf of the Minister. If admission is granted, the Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) draws up an individual detention and reintegration plan: the D&R plan. Follow-up reviews may consider more advanced activities.

After 28 years: a government-initiated pardon procedure

Since 1 July 2023, the review takes place through a government-initiated pardon procedure after 28 years of detention, instead of 27 years. Government-initiated means that the authorities start the procedure themselves. The possible reintegration phase therefore lasts three years instead of two, allowing a more gradual preparation for a return to society.

The Public Prosecution Service, the court and the Advisory Board provide advice on a pardon based on assessments. The Minister then makes a decision on that basis. A positive decision leads to release subject to conditions. A pardon therefore offers a way to end a life sentence, but release after 25 or 28 years is not guaranteed.

What has the Supreme Court decided?

In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that the Netherlands did not have a review procedure that met European requirements. The way life sentences were enforced offered insufficient prospects of release and social rehabilitation. Without changes, imposing a life sentence was contrary to Article 3 ECHR.

On 19 December 2017, the Supreme Court accepted the new system in principle (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3185). On paper, it offered a genuine opportunity for review and a reduction of the sentence. The enforcement of the sentence could also be reviewed by the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ). However, the Supreme Court warned that if life sentences are never reduced in practice, a violation of Article 3 ECHR could still arise.

On 8 July 2025, the Supreme Court clarified that the number of pardons granted is not the only factor that matters (ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1114). Structural shortcomings are also relevant. Procedures must take place on time, and reintegration activities must actually be available. If this repeatedly requires intervention by a prison-law adjudicator or a civil court, that weighs increasingly heavily in the assessment of the system.

Prison leave for life-sentenced prisoners

The ordinary options for short-term and long-term reintegration leave and work outside the prison from a limited-security unit (BBA) do not apply to life-sentenced prisoners. This is because their remaining sentence cannot be calculated. Occasional leave may be possible for circumstances unrelated to reintegration.

There is also a special leave scheme for those admitted to reintegration activities after 25 years. Article 20d of the Regulations on Temporary Leave from an Institution (Rtvi) applies:

• Leave lasts no more than one day, under paragraph 5.
• The Minister decides after receiving advice from the Advisory Board.
• Approved leave is included in the D&R plan.
• The application must explain how the leave contributes to the reintegration goals in that plan.
• Electronic monitoring is always required.

During the first year of participation in reintegration activities, leave takes place with accompaniment and guards. Depending on the person’s behaviour, leave in the second year may take place without accompaniment or guards. Exceptions may be made on the advice of the Advisory Board. Article 20d, paragraph 3, Rtvi sets out the grounds for refusing leave.

Daily life, healthcare and visits

The prison director retains a duty of care towards life-sentenced prisoners. According to the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ), the mere fact that someone is serving a life sentence is not sufficient reason to refuse a request for social rehabilitation activities (12 November 2015, 15/2527/GA). This is separate from the procedure for admission to the formal reintegration phase.

Personal circumstances also deserve attention. If someone finds contact with newly detained people or short-term prisoners difficult, the prison must make efforts to shield them from these groups as much as possible (Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ), 20 July 2011, 10/3087/GA). An individual approach can allow room for exceptions, freedom of choice, work and self-study.

Article 39 of the Prison Principles Act (Penitentiaire beginselenwet, Pbw) gives prisoners the right to at least one hour of visits per week. However, long-term detention can lead to social isolation, meaning that visiting opportunities are rarely used. Decisions about visits must take personal circumstances into account. This may justify greater flexibility; a life sentence does not automatically create additional rights.

The Council of Europe has also made recommendations on matters including leave and consideration of conditional release. These recommendations are not directly binding legislation. Their principles include individual treatment, living conditions that are as normal as possible, responsibility, safety, avoiding segregation as a group and opportunities to make progress.

Complaining about decisions during detention

When making a formal complaint (beklag), it must be clear which decision is being challenged and who made it. The decision on admission to reintegration activities is made by the Minister, not the prison director.

That distinction was decisive in a ruling of 7 November 2017 (KC 2017/043). A complaint about a reintegration plan was declared inadmissible: the complaints committee (beklagcommissie) could not consider the substance of the complaint. It was not sufficiently clear which decision by the director was being challenged; moreover, the decision on admission rested with the Minister.

Contact with the media

Media requests also require a specific balancing of interests:

• 22 February 2023, KC 2023/030: interviews were permitted, but discussing the criminal case was not. The director had not adequately explained which interests under Article 40 of the Prison Principles Act (Penitentiaire beginselenwet, Pbw) would be threatened. The complaint was upheld, and compensation of € 10 was awarded. The appeal was dismissed by the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ).
• 5 February 2024, KC 2024/003: the refusal to allow participation in a documentary was adequately justified on the grounds of the interests of bereaved family members. The complaints committee (beklagcommissie) stressed that their need for peace could not indefinitely outweigh the interest in expressing one’s own views. An appeal was lodged against this decision.

Criticism of the pardon procedure

An evaluation from October 2021 assessed the foundations of the Advisory Board system positively. At the same time, the reintegration phase fell short because of a lack of time, uncertainties and unnecessary interim decisions.

In its 2022 advisory report Life Imprisonment Reviewed, the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) advocated decision-making by a court rather than through pardons. According to the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ), judicial review offers better safeguards against political influence. Forum Levenslang, founded in 2008, also works to reduce the harmful effects of detention and secure genuine prospects of release. Its criticisms include the late timing of the review and uncertainty about progress.

In 2019, the National Ombudsman found that the Public Prosecution Service had fallen short in advising on a pardon application. In 2021, he again called for a timely, genuine review in line with European standards.

The case of Cevdet Y. illustrates this tension. After repeated court rulings that there were insufficient reasons to refuse a pardon, a recommendation to grant one followed on 20 January 2021. His detention had begun on 7 April 1983.

There have been plans to replace pardons with conditional release decided by a court. However, on 8 October 2024, the House of Representatives adopted a motion calling for those plans to be abandoned.

Reopening a conviction: a different route

Reopening a conviction is not about development during detention, but about whether the conviction was correct. If new information emerges that would probably have led to a different outcome, the Supreme Court can be asked to reopen a final conviction.

If the Supreme Court grants the application, a different court of appeal hears the criminal case again. Lucia de Berk is an example of a life sentence being reviewed through this route. This route is also available for other final criminal convictions.

What does this mean for you?

• Keep the different reviews separate. Admission to reintegration activities after 25 years does not mean that you have been granted a pardon or release.
• Show your progress. Behaviour, treatment and personal growth are taken into account in the assessment.
• Explain your care needs. Necessary treatment is also important for your prospects of returning to society.
• Link a leave application to your D&R plan. Explain which goal the leave supports.
• Be specific about your personal circumstances. For example, explain problems with visits, social isolation or living conditions.
• Check who made the decision before complaining. A ministerial decision on admission cannot be challenged as if it were a decision by the prison director.

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