Dutch honour-killing trial intensifies scrutiny of protection failures and cross-border justice limits
Dutch prosecutors have charged two brothers with the honour-related killing of their 18-year-old sister, prompting questions over safeguarding decisions and the inability to return a primary suspect now believed to be in Syria.
Netherlands Honour Killing of Sister
Dutch authorities have launched an honour-killing trial in the Netherlands involving the death of 18-year-old Ryan Al Najjar, with prosecutors alleging that her brothers Mohamed and Muhanad Al Najjar participated in the killing after she was restrained, gagged, and left in a swamp area in Lelystad.
Prosecutors say the case centres on actions linked to perceived “shame,” leading investigators to classify the incident as an honour-related crime. The investigation escalated on 28 May 2024, when Ryan’s body was recovered six days after she was reported missing from her family home in Joure.
The father, Khaled Al Najjar, is being tried in absentia after leaving the country for Syria. The central legal issues concern potential coordinated involvement, the adequacy of earlier police-protection decisions, and the limitations of cross-border criminal cooperation. The Public Prosecution Service and the Ministry of Justice and Security are the main authorities overseeing the case due to its implications for public safety and honour-based-violence prevention.
A court sketch of suspects Mohammed, right, and Muhanad Al Najjar, accused of helping their father kill their sister. The men have insisted their father acted alone
Prosecutors have classified the killing as honour-related, raising legal questions around alleged premeditation, complicity, and whether safeguarding measures discontinuing her police protection met national standards.
The Public Prosecution Service is leading the case, with the Ministry of Justice and Security responsible for oversight and international-cooperation issues. The matter carries public-safety significance because it highlights risks in honour-based violence prevention, the adequacy of protection measures, and the constraints on pursuing suspects across borders.
What we know so far
Prosecutors state that Ryan Al Najjar was reported missing on 22 May 2024 and was found deceased on 28 May in a swamp area in Lelystad. Forensic examination documented her hands restrained behind her back, her ankles taped, and a gag present, with drowning identified as the cause of death. Investigators also recorded her father’s DNA under her fingernails.
Authorities allege that the father instructed his sons to transport her to an isolated location and place her in the water while she was unable to free herself. Prosecutors have classified the incident as an honour killing based on evidence that relatives viewed her behaviour as bringing “shame” on the household.
The brothers were arrested shortly after the recovery of the body and remain in custody. Their father left the Netherlands before his arrest and is believed by Dutch broadcasters to be in northern Syria.
The Ministry of Justice and Security has said that criminal-cooperation mechanisms with Syria are not operational, while Syrian officials have publicly disputed this and stated that no request from the Netherlands has been received.
The legal questions raised
Under Dutch criminal law, courts assess whether the alleged conduct meets thresholds for premeditated murder, participation, or aiding and abetting. Participation may cover transporting a victim, restraining them, or carrying out actions knowing they are likely to result in death.
Safeguarding decisions are also in focus. The ending of protective measures is typically subject to documented risk assessments under the Dutch Duty of Care principles and EU standards on protection of persons at risk of gender-based violence.
International-cooperation constraints influence whether suspects abroad can be returned. Extradition requires the existence of functioning bilateral or multilateral frameworks, which Dutch authorities state are absent in relation to Syria.
👉 Further Reading: Understanding Duty of Care: The Hidden Legal Principle That Protects You Every Day 🇬🇧🟨 👈
The Scale of Honour-Related Violence in the Netherlands
According to Dutch police and specialist intervention units — data compiled in the Dutch government–supported Honour-Based Violence Factsheet published by HuiselijkGeweld.nl — the scale of suspected honour-related violence in the Netherlands is significantly larger than the small number of cases that ultimately reach a courtroom. Each year, authorities register an estimated 2,500 to 3,000 suspected “family honour” offences, ranging from threats and coercion to forced marriage, assault, and severe domestic control. Of these, approximately 460 cases are considered serious enough to be referred to the country’s national expert centre on honour-related violence (LEC Eergerelateerd Geweld).
Within that group, investigators identify between 7 and 17 fatal incidents annually, including murders, attempted murders, manslaughter, and cases where extreme coercion contributes to suicides. These figures highlight a critical point in the national discussion: while honour-based killings represent only a fraction of the total caseload, they emerge from a much wider system of family-imposed control, escalating abuse, and community pressure that frequently remains hidden or under-reported.
Human rights, safety and public-interest context
Honour-related killings fall within gender-based violence frameworks recognised by the United Nations and the Council of Europe. States have obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to safeguard life and to take reasonable steps to protect individuals at credible risk.
UNODC and OSCE guidance emphasise detection of coercion, family-based threats, and escalating patterns of control. Where protective measures are withdrawn, oversight bodies often review whether the decision met minimum risk-assessment standards.
Community safety considerations include the ability of systems to identify and respond to honour-based threats, the need for specialised police capability, and ensuring that vulnerable individuals receive consistent protection regardless of cultural or familial context.
Role of law enforcement and regulators
Dutch police are responsible for gathering the evidence that underpins a case like this, from recovering the body and documenting restraints to analysing digital data and prior reports involving the family. In honour-related killings, officers may be expected to review earlier safeguarding files and assess whether warnings or threats were recorded before the victim’s death.
Prosecutors then decide which charges to bring and whether the available evidence supports trying a suspect who has left the country in absentia. When a suspect is believed to be abroad, police and prosecutors can issue international alerts or legal-assistance requests, but any follow-up depends on whether a real cooperation channel exists with the state concerned.
Regulators and oversight bodies can later look at how protection decisions were made, including why any police safeguarding measures were downgraded or ended. Their role is to assess whether Dutch duty-of-care and risk-assessment standards were properly applied and to identify where guidance or practice may need to change.
Risks, implications and public impact
Honour-based killings carry a deeper public impact than a single criminal case. They raise immediate questions about whether vulnerable people are being seen, heard, and protected when warning signs appear. When someone known to be at risk ends up dead, trust in safeguarding systems takes a hit—not in an abstract way, but in a way that families and communities feel personally.
The limits of cross-border cooperation add another layer of tension. If a key suspect can leave the country and remain outside reach because cooperation channels are stalled or disputed, it creates a clear gap in accountability. That gap isn’t theoretical; it shapes how future victims understand their own safety and whether the system can respond when danger comes from within a family.
This case is already influencing how authorities think about honour-based violence: who is flagged, how risk is understood, and whether protective measures last long enough to make a difference. It underscores how easily coercion, family pressure, or hidden threats can escalate—and why the public expects clearer, faster, more reliable intervention.
Key questions people are asking
Why is the case designated an honour killing?
Prosecutors classify a killing as honour-related when evidence indicates the motive involved perceived violations of family expectations or reputational concerns. The designation is based on motive, not cultural or religious attribution.
Why was police protection previously ended?
Authorities have not disclosed the specific reasoning. In general, protection may be discontinued following risk assessments, which may later be reviewed to determine whether procedures complied with duty-of-care standards.
Why is the father being tried in absentia?
Dutch law permits trials in absentia when a defendant cannot be returned through recognised international-cooperation mechanisms. The accused retains rights if later apprehended.
Can suspects be extradited from Syria?
Dutch authorities state that legal-cooperation structures with Syria are not currently operational. Extradition requires mutual legal-assistance frameworks and functioning justice institutions recognised by both parties.
Does DNA automatically determine guilt?
DNA forms part of a wider evidentiary record. Courts assess context, transfer possibilities, and corroborating material before drawing conclusions.
What happens next
Police investigators are working through the forensic record, location data, and communications to build a clear picture of what happened in the days before and after Ryan disappeared. In cases linked to honour-based motives, officers also review earlier reports, family conflicts, and any documented warnings to understand whether the threat escalated.
Prosecutors move forward once they believe the evidence meets Dutch charging standards, combining forensic findings with interviews and digital records. When a suspect leaves the country, authorities can issue notifications internationally, but meaningful action depends on whether cooperation with the other state is operational.
Oversight bodies may later look at how earlier safeguarding decisions were made — whether risk indicators were recognised, whether information was passed between agencies, and whether protective measures followed national guidelines. Those reviews often determine whether systems worked as intended or if changes are needed.
Final legal takeaway
The case centres on allegations of coordinated involvement in an honour-related killing and the limitations of Dutch authorities in securing the return of a suspect abroad. It raises structural questions about safeguarding processes, evidence thresholds, and international-cooperation capacity. The proceedings will influence wider discussions on the state’s duty to protect individuals at risk of honour-based violence and the mechanisms available for cross-border accountability.
👉 Further Reading: Extradition Limits and Cross-Border Justice in Europe 👈
