Around 40 people in the Netherlands are serving life sentences. According to State Secretary for Security and Justice Teeven, life imprisonment is actually life imprisonment.

This would mean that there is virtually no prospect of a return to society for this group in the Netherlands at present. Thus, according to the state secretary, they need not be eligible for activities aimed at reintegration into society.

One would then expect that a life-sentenced person would not be required to participate in the labour offered in prison. After all, labour is mainly meant to prepare for a return to society. Yet my client, who is serving a life sentence, was disciplined three times for refusing to participate in labour. Thus, one can still speak of a strong example of unauthorised forced labour. In the end, the appeals committee (RSJ ) vindicated my client in an important ruling last month. Life-sentenced prisoners may now no longer be forced to participate in available labour.

Still, this ruling is but cold comfort for the life-sentenced. Views on freedom are of course much more important than being exempted from a work obligation. That is why it is very interesting what the RSJ considered in the same ruling: "unlike the ministers, the Appeals Committee is of the opinion that preparation for return to society should remain the starting point for all prisoners. It expressly distances itself in this case from the State Secretary's position on life imprisonment. This ignores the importance, also emphasised in European case law, that a detainee should always be offered the prospect of release."

This gives hope to the life-sentenced. If an important body like the RSJ emphasises that the current legislation is contrary to European case law, something might start to move. The European Court of Human Rights ruled last year that a life sentence with no prospect of freedom qualifies as inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees. The Netherlands is one of the few countries in Europe that still has a life sentence without interim review.

It is therefore high time for the introduction of a periodic assessment moment at which the life-sentenced person can convince an assessment committee that he is not or no longer a danger to society and continuation of the sentence is unnecessary, or at least no longer serves a reasonable purpose. With such a review moment, it also makes real sense for life-sentenced persons to participate in activities aimed at reintegration into society, such as employment. The more he is resocialised, the greater the chance that continuation of the life sentence will be deemed unnecessary and he will be released.

The legislature would kill two birds with one stone by introducing such a review. With this review, the Netherlands would again comply with the requirements of the Human Rights Convention. It would also do justice to the Dutch Penitentiary Institutions Act, which defines resocialisation as the main objective of detention. Until the law is changed, summary proceedings seem the appropriate way to put an end to unlawful government action. Because that is what happens when lifelong prisoners are offered no prospect of freedom.

Mr D.M. Penn