DEN HAAG – The Supreme Court of the Netherlands has overturned the conviction of a man accused of threatening to set fire to the Curaçaohuis in The Hague. According to the country’s highest court, the evidence used by the The Hague Court of Appeal to convict the suspect was legally insufficient.
The case stems from an incident on May 11, 2022, at the Curaçaohuis. According to the court of appeal, the suspect had been present near the entrance door of the building and later allegedly told a receptionist by phone, “I’m going to set your building on fire.” The court considered this statement to constitute a threat of arson and convicted the man.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction violated Article 342, paragraph 2, of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes the so-called minimum evidence requirement. This rule stipulates that a conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a single witness.
The court of appeal had relied primarily on the statement of the receptionist. While the court had concluded that her testimony was supported by other evidence, the Supreme Court found that reasoning “not self-evident.”
For example, the statement of the Minister Plenipotentiary of Curaçao did not clearly indicate whether he personally heard the threatening words or had only learned about them through the receptionist.
In addition, a police report showed only that the suspect’s seized phone rang when officers called the number saved by the receptionist. While this confirmed that the number belonged to the suspect, it did not prove that he had made the alleged threat.
Because the Supreme Court determined that the court of appeal’s reasoning was insufficiently substantiated, the conviction has been annulled. The case will now be sent back to the The Hague Court of Appeal, which must reconsider the case and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction.
The ruling does not mean that the suspect has been acquitted, but it does invalidate the earlier conviction. The decision highlights that strict evidentiary standards apply even in cases involving threats against government institutions within the Kingdom.