News

On 21 April 2026, the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) published its judgment on the case Y.F.C. and Others v. The Netherlands (Application no. 21325/19). The applicants, a group of Venezuelan nationals, arrived at Curaçao by boat in April 2019 to apply for international protection and were arrested upon entry. Subsequently, they were placed in immigration detention and orders of removal were issued against them. They were held in several facilities, including the aliens’ barracks immigration detention facility and the SDKK prison. In June 2019, during the transfer of some applicants from one facility to another, a scuffle broke out between them and the authorities intervened using rubber bullets at close range. Several applicants alleged that they suffered injuries and that no independent investigation on the use of force was carried out. They also complained about the conditions of their detention and the lack of access to effective remedies. 

In relation to the complaints under the procedural limb of Article 3 ECHR, the Court reiterated that an investigation into allegations of ill-treatment must be prompt and thorough in order to be effective. It found that the investigative material only consisted of internal reports drafted by security officials directly involved in the events. Moreover, there was no evidence that the applicants were properly involved in any investigative process or that the authorities took meaningful steps to establish the facts. Therefore, the Court held that the authorities failed to conduct an effective and independent investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment and found a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb in respect of applicants 1, 2, 3, and 6. Regarding the substantive limb of Article 3, the Court recalled that any use of force against persons in custody must be strictly necessary in light of their conduct.  In the absence of an effective investigation clarifying the events, the Court found that the Government had failed to show that the use of rubber bullets was strictly necessary and that there were not clear domestic safeguards governing the deployment of kinetic impact projectiles in such circumstances. Hence, it found a violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb in respect of applicants 1, 2, and 3. The Court declared the complaints concerning the conditions of detention under Article 3 inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

Concerning Article 5 § 4, the Court found t that remedies under Curaçaoan law were not practically accessible to the applicants, that the detention orders were in a language the applicants did not understand, that they did not mention the possibility of interim relief, and that the applicants had no access to legal assistance or statutory legal aid. The Court therefore concluded that the applicants could not obtain a speedy judicial review of their detention and found a violation of Article 5 § 4 in respect of all applicants. By contrast, it declared the complaints under Articles 5 §§ 1 and 2 inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies available.

The Court therefore found that Netherlands was responsible for the violation of Articles 3 and 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of Curaçao.