Annexe: information on measures taken to implement the recommendations
contained in the Committee’s previous concluding observations
In accordance with rule 71, paragraph 5 of the Human Rights Committee’s rules of
procedure, the Kingdom of the Netherlands was asked, in paragraph 29 of the concluding
observations of the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/NLD/CO/4), to provide within one
year information on the current situation and on its implementation of the Committee’s
recommendations in paragraphs 7, 9 and 23. This information has been submitted. This
annexe provides information on the remaining recommendations for the Netherlands. As
regards the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations by Aruba and Curaçao,
please refer to the Report on the List of Issues to which this Annexe has been added.
Paragraph 4 (reservation to article 10)
The Kingdom of the Netherlands wishes to maintain its reservation to article 10 ICCPR. For
further information see the answer to question 3.
Paragraph 5 (equal pay for women)
The Netherlands aims to increase women’s participation and economic independence, and
to encourage a healthy balance of work and care. The income-related combination tax credit
was introduced to stimulate secondary earners within households (mostly women) to
maintain or increase their working hours after childbirth. Other measures include childcare
benefit, policies aimed at improving the quality of childcare, various leave arrangements and
the Flexible Working Arrangements Act, which entitles employees to request changes to
their working hours and work location.
Several measures are in place to address the gender pay gap. These include awarenessraising campaigns, specific measures incorporated in the Action Plan against Labour Market
Discrimination, steps to promote the active involvement of the ‘social partners’ (employers’
associations and trade unions), progress reports, the establishment of an employment
discrimination team at the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment
(ISZW), research on equal pay in higher vocational education (HBO), measures in the
insurance industry and the establishment of a biennial ‘gender pay gap monitor’ in the
private and public sectors.
Paragraph 6 (women in public office)
Within political parties

AVT18/BZ124681C

1

The basic premise in the Netherlands is that the political parties are responsible for recruiting
and nominating candidates for political posts on behalf of the party. The freedom of political
parties is one of the fundamental principles underpinning the Dutch democratic system.
Figures relating to the number of women among administrators and politicians at local and
regional level are published every two years in a report entitled ‘State of Government’ (Staat
van het Bestuur).
The Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Affairs, and the Association of Dutch Mayors
believe it is important for more women to become mayors, one of the most visible posts in
local government. One instrument to achieve this is the mayoral orientation programme,
financed by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Affairs. The aim of the programme is to
offer promising candidates from other professional backgrounds the opportunity to prepare
themselves to apply for a post as mayor.
Within the Senior Civil Service
The Senior Civil Service (ABD) consists of around 500 of the most senior Dutch civil
servants. Between 2007 and late 2013 the proportion of women in the ABD rose from 18%
to 29%. By the end of 2016 the proportion of women holding a senior post in government
service was 33%.
In the private sector
The Monitoring Committee noted in its 2016 Companies Monitor that although the proportion
of women on management boards and supervisory boards is increasing, the rate of progress
is too slow. All of the 5,000 Dutch companies that fall under the extended Management and
Supervision Act must work to ensure that more women occupy top-level posts in the near
future. To help and inspire these companies, the Minister for Education, Culture and
Science, who is the coordinating minister for equal treatment policy, and the president of the
Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (VNO-NCW) have sent them a letter
and handbook containing information and tips on recruitment and selection procedures. In
addition, the Senate agreed in early 2017 that the statutory target for a balanced gender
ratio on management boards should be maintained. This means that the 5,000 companies
that fall under the Act are obliged to make ongoing efforts to allot 30% of the seats on
management and supervisory boards to women. The Act further obliges every company that
fails to achieve the 30% target to explain in its annual report why this is so and to set out
plans to correct the situation.
Paragraph 8 (medical experiments involving minors)

AVT18/BZ124681C

2

On 16 June 2014, a new Clinical Trials Regulation entered into force in the European Union
(CTR EU No 536/2014).1 Once applied, the Regulation will ensure that the rules for
conducting clinical trials are identical throughout the EU. It also sets out the latest standards
for patient safety in clinical trials in all EU member states, including the Netherlands.
The Dutch government was already reconsidering the legislation concerning the participation
of minors and incapacitated subjects in non-therapeutic research. In doing so, it took
account of both patient safety and the importance of such research to advancing knowledge
of disease and enhancing existing treatments or developing new ones for the benefit of the
population represented by the subject. The publication of the EU Clinical Trials Regulation
was taken into account in the revision of the Dutch Medical Research (Human Subjects) Act.
One of the conditions set by the Regulation for non-therapeutic research involving minors is
as follows: a clinical trial on minors may be conducted only where there are scientific
grounds for expecting that participation in the clinical trial will produce some benefit for the
population represented by the minor concerned and such a clinical trial will pose only
minimal risk to, and will impose minimal burden on, the minor concerned in comparison with
the standard treatment of the minor’s condition. In anticipation of the implications for
interventional clinical research involving medicinal products, this standard has been adopted
by the Netherlands for all types of medical research with human subjects, including trials of
medical devices, and observational and social science research. The change entered into
force in the Netherlands on 1 March 2017. The revised legislation also conforms to the more
detailed description given by the EU clinical trials expert group of the requirements for
research involving minors laid down in the revised Ethical Considerations for Clinical Trials
on Medicinal Products conducted with Minors, as published in September 2017.
With regard to safeguarding consent, the government would like to point out that this is a
standard legal requirement in medical research. More importantly, before a minor can
participate in medical research, not only is the consent of the parents or legal guardians
required (after they have been adequately informed), but from the age of 12 the consent of
the minor is also mandatory. If consent for a minor under the age of 12 has been given by
the parents or legal guardians but the minor in question does not wish to participate, the
minor will be excluded from the trial. This ensures that the wishes of a minor, or a person
unable to give informed consent, are respected under all circumstances.
Paragraph 10 (2008 National Security (Administrative Measures) Bill)

1

The Regulation will become applicable in the Netherlands on a date as yet to be determined,
possibly in 2019.

AVT18/BZ124681C

3

The bill has been withdrawn. The grounds for this recommendation therefore no longer exist.
Paragraph 11 (right to counsel)
The right to legal representation is enshrined in article 6 of the ECHR and article 18 of the
Constitution. Under the criminal law, every arrested suspect has the right to speak to a
lawyer before being questioned by the police (Salduz judgment; ECtHR). For further
information see the answer to question 15.
Paragraph 12 (pre-trial detention)
In its previous concluding observation no. 12, the Committee expressed concern regarding
pre-trial detention in the Netherlands. The government therefore wishes to provide a further
explanation of the relevant statutory framework and the practical application of pre-trial
detention.
The term pre-trial detention as used here encompasses both remand in police custody
(inverzekeringstelling) and the subsequent stages of pre-trial detention (voorlopige
hechtenis). The interests of the investigation constitute the basis for remand in police
custody (regulated in article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The legislature has
restricted the application of remand in police custody to criminal offences for which pre-trial
detention (voorlopige hechtenis) is permissible (article 58, Code of Criminal Procedure). In
general, these are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of four years or more.
Remand in police custody may be ordered by the public prosecutor or assistant public
prosecutor for a maximum of three days and may be extended once for a further three days.
The public prosecutor orders the release of the suspect as soon as the interests of the
investigation allow this. A relatively large number of suspects (over 50%) are released during
remand in police custody or when the remand period ends.
Longer periods of detention can be ordered only by the examining magistrate or the courts.
The court can make a detention order only if a number of specific statutory criteria have
been met (see articles 67 and 67a, Code of Criminal Procedure). There is also a statutory
requirement precluding the imposition of pre-trial detention if the suspect is not expected to
receive a sentence or non-punitive order depriving them of their liberty, or if the term
involved is likely to be shorter than the total period of pre-trial detention. Finally, the
Netherlands applies the principle that pre-trial detention should be used with caution, in
accordance with ECtHR case law. In principle, suspects remain free while awaiting trial, or
alternatives to detention are explored. Such alternatives include electronic monitoring, or
suspension or termination of pre-trial detention subject to conditions laid down by the court.

AVT18/BZ124681C

4

These conditions may restrict the suspect’s liberty (e.g. if a restraining order is imposed) or
oblige them to take part in certain activities or programmes. The figures show that the courts
are making increasing use of such alternatives. Pre-trial detention is suspended in around
25% of hearings before the public prosecutor.
The judiciary is currently exploring the scope for encouraging the courts to release suspects
on bail rather than impose pre-trial detention. The government would also refer the
Committee to the Act on the mutual recognition of decisions on supervision measures as an
alternative to provisional detention (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2013, 250), which entered
into force on 1 November 2013 (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2013, 309).
The need to extend pre-trial detention is periodically reviewed by the courts; at the same
time, increasingly strict requirements are imposed with regard to the grounds for detaining
the suspect. A detention order may be lifted if there is no longer any suspicion that one of
the offences listed in article 67a, paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been
committed or if there are no longer serious grounds for suspicion within the meaning of
article 67, paragraph 3 of the Code. In addition, the suspect’s personal circumstances such
as a change in their family or work situation can be raised to support the lifting of the
detention order. Other arguments that may be put forward include the undesirability of
enforcing the order in a police cell, or defects in the order or in the arrest and remand in
police custody procedures.
The following observations also apply to the use of pre-trial detention. It is correct that the
number of individuals in pre-trial detention relative to the total prison population is high, but
the following circumstances should be taken into account. The number of people on remand
in the Netherlands per 100,000 inhabitants is exactly the same as the European average
(35). However, in the Netherlands more short prison sentences are imposed than in other
countries, so the share of the total prison population made up of people in pre-trial detention
is relatively large. Pre-trial detention is not imposed extremely often or for extremely long
periods.
A person who has undergone pre-trial detention in criminal proceedings and is no longer a
suspect can claim compensation under article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the
criminal case concluded without a sentence or measure being imposed. A fixed daily amount
of €80 (or €105 if detention took place at a police station) applies. Suspects can also claim
compensation for costs and loss of income under article 591a of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Paragraph 13 (witness identity)

AVT18/BZ124681C

5

The Witness Identity Protection Act contains a provision on questioning the staff of the
intelligence and security services. This may take place in the context of an investigation into
the reliability of information supplied by these services to ascertain if it can be used in
criminal proceedings.
During such questioning the rights of the defence may be restricted if this is necessary in the
interests of national security. The Act contains effective safeguards to compensate the
defence for any restrictions to its rights of defence imposed as a result of this provision. For
example, the questioning of a witness whose identity is protected is conducted by the court,
which must be informed of the full identity of the witness; the witness must be sworn in; the
court must investigate the reliability of the witness’s testimony; and the defence must have
sufficient opportunity to question the witness. It is acknowledged that such questioning must
often take place without the defence being present if the interests of national security so
require. To compensate, the Act provides for restrictions on the scope for using in evidence
the testimony of a witness whose identity is protected. Furthermore, the court is obliged to
provide specific reasoning to underpin the use of such testimony as evidence.
In the government’s opinion, the above-mentioned legislation provides an adequate basis for
the use of information provided by the intelligence and security services in criminal
proceedings. If such information is used as a source of evidence in a criminal case, the
defence must be given the opportunity to investigate and challenge its reliability, if necessary
by summoning witnesses to be heard in court. The Witness Identity Protection Act provides
the necessary framework and imposes restrictions on the use of such material in evidence.
Paragraph 14 (telephone tapping)
There is a general impression that interception of phone communications (tapping) is
common in the Netherlands. Every year, the Dutch Parliament receives a report containing
the annual figures on telephone interceptions. This data provides information about the
number of interceptions carried out in the context of criminal investigations, enabling
Parliament to ask questions. The annual total is approximately 25,000. Although the number
of taps on landlines in the Netherlands has been stable for many years (around 3,000 in the
period from 1993 to 2008), the growth in the use of mobile phones has led to a marked rise
in the total number of interceptions, from zero in 1993 to over 20,000 in 2009. There has
also been a striking increase in the number of interceptions of internet communications, from
3,331 in 2011 to 16,676 in 2012. The same trend can be observed in a neighbouring
country: a study carried out by a research institute speaks of an exponential rise of over
600% in the number of interception warrants issued for telephone tapping in the country
concerned between 1998 and 2007. Nevertheless, the number of interceptions carried out in
AVT18/BZ124681C

6

the Netherlands in recent years has declined slightly, both in absolute figures (a 17%
reduction in 2010 compared with 2008) and in relation to the total number of connections in
use. The figures show that the number of connections intercepted is less than 0.10% of the
total number of telephone connections in the Netherlands.
The study referred to above shows that as an investigative tool, telephone tapping is highly
valued by the Dutch police and justice authorities and has more than demonstrated its
usefulness over time. However, the way in which the information thus obtained is used has
changed: in the past it could be used as direct evidence, but today it is increasingly deployed
for control and investigative purposes and as indirect evidence. It should be noted that
telephone interceptions are registered according to telephone number in the Netherlands
and not according to individual or company name, which would allow interception warrants to
be combined.
The study also showed that the use of mobile phones has grown exponentially in recent
years. People whose phones are being tapped frequently change their SIM card or mobile
phone. Each time this happens, the agency concerned has to seek a new warrant in order to
be able to continue intercepting the suspect’s calls. A bill is currently before Parliament that
would provide for interception by name. This would allow the public prosecutor simply to
note the name of the user in question and the warrant would be issued in that name. In such
a case, the warrant – and an authorisation from the examining magistrate – would apply to
all numbers used by that person for the duration of the warrant. Studies estimate that only
20% of users have only one telephone number. On the basis of two to four numbers per
person, it is expected that once the bill enters into law the number of interception warrants
sought will be more than halved.
Paragraph 15 (‘disturbance orders’)
The Dutch government is obliged to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights and
freedoms of its citizens. The right to private life is a fundamental right protected by article 10
of the Dutch Constitution, article 17 of the Covenant and article 8 of the ECHR.
Infringements of privacy must have a statutory basis and must be subject to strict
safeguards. Where measures are necessary in the interests of national security, the
government can apply them vis-à-vis individuals only after careful consideration of all the
interests at stake. On 1 March 2017, new legislation entered into force within the framework
of the plan of action ‘An Integrated Approach to Jihadism’, extending the government’s
powers to combat terrorism. For example, it is now possible to impose certain administrative
measures (e.g. a banning order, restraining order or requirement to report periodically to the
authorities) on individuals who engage in conduct connected with terrorist activities or who
AVT18/BZ124681C

7

provide support for such activities. The law also empowers the authorities to issue a travel
ban. Such measures can only be imposed if they are deemed necessary on the grounds of
national security. They must further have a legitimate purpose, serve a pressing social need
and meet the requirements of foreseeability, proportionality and subsidiarity.
Paragraph 16 (blasphemy)
In paragraph 16 of the Human Rights Committee’s concluding observations on the
Netherlands’ fourth periodic report, the Committee drew attention to the principle of freedom
of expression in connection with the government’s intention to remove the article on
blasphemy from the Criminal Code and at the same time to revise its anti-discrimination
provisions. However, the government has scrapped its plans in this respect. As a result, the
grounds for the recommendation no longer apply.
It goes without saying that the Netherlands attaches great value to freedom of expression.
Whenever the government is preparing legislation that might affect this principle, it takes
great care to ensure that the proposed legislation is compatible with article 19 of the
Covenant.
Paragraph 17 (child sexual abuse)
The government takes vigorous measures to combat child abuse. For a detailed explanation
of these measures, the government would refer the Committee to the answer to question 30.
Paragraph 18 (Urban Areas (Special Measures) Act)
The government would refer the Committee to the answer to question 23.
Paragraph 19 (discrimination)
The government presented its Action Plan against Labour Market Discrimination in May
2014. Information and awareness are key issues. One of the principal measures outlined in
the plan is the Diversity Charter. By signing the Charter, organisations commit themselves to
an active focus on inclusion and diversity in the work environment. Committed organisations
formulate their own goals in their action plans. All government ministries have signed the
Diversity Charter. Examples of measures taken include the provision of workshops on
‘selection without prejudice’ and advice on tapping into alternative recruitment channels. For
more detailed information, the government would refer the Committee to the answers to
questions regarding discrimination in the main report.
Bonaire. St Eustatius and Saba (part of the former Netherlands Antilles)

AVT18/BZ124681C

8

Paragraph 21 (discrimination against children born out of wedlock)
In connection with the changed constitutional arrangements in Bonaire, St Eustatius and
Saba, a new Civil Code for the three islands has replaced the Civil Code of the Netherlands
Antilles.
When the consolidated text of the new Code was adopted on 27 September 2010, three
articles of the Netherlands Antilles Civil Code were reintroduced in Book 4 by mistake.
These articles distinguish between children born in and out of wedlock in matters of
inheritance law. This distinction was abolished in 1985 and is no longer made in legal
practice in Bonaire, St Eustatius and Saba.
The text of Book 4 is corrected, bringing it into line with existing practice (through the
Security & Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Bill no. 33 771), in force since 1
September 2014).

AVT18/BZ124681C

9