Public Prosecution Service demands 8 years imprisonment for rape of woman from Maastricht

News report | 02-02-2026 | 15:42

According to the OM, the violent rape was preceded by a (partly) premeditated plan, namely deliberately misleading the woman and her partner about his name and address. The suspect did this to facilitate the execution of the rape. Therefore, the OM speaks of a so-called qualified intentional rape. The suspect knew he would not be able to pay the woman for her sexual services. By providing her with a false address, he ensured that no one could disrupt this plan.

Sufficient supporting evidence

The victim gave detailed and consistent statements, and therefore the public prosecutor considers her statement reliable. The woman stated that the suspect tied her wrists, showed a weapon, and threatened her with a knife.  According to the public prosecutor, there is sufficient supporting evidence confirming the victims statements. These statements are detailed and correspond on important points: how the appointment between her and the suspect was made, what happened in the house prior to the sexual acts, and which sexual acts were performed. The statements are also supported by other evidence, such as statements from the victims then partner. These statements were made while he was held as a suspect for vandalism at the Maastricht police station and before the victim reported to the police. He therefore had no opportunity to coordinate his statement with the statements the woman would later make to the police. Additionally, there are various police observations supporting the victims statements. Furthermore, the woman had various injuries that, according to her, occurred when she tried to resist the suspect.

Sex for payment

The suspect claims there was consensual sex for payment. However, according to the OM, this explanation does not account for the injuries, the need to provide a false name and address, and the emotional state in which the woman called her boyfriend to come and get her.

Sentence demand

Public prosecutor at the hearing: “The suspect aggressively and threateningly satisfied his own sexual needs. That he had to forcibly deprive the victim of her liberty and threaten with serious forms of violence did not stop him. This while the woman was already in an extra vulnerable position. Although the physical injuries sustained by the victim fortunately remained limited, this cannot be said of the psychological injuries. The fears she had to endure during her stay in the suspects house must have been indescribable. The suspect did not care.”

The OM takes into account that the suspect has previously been convicted of rape in both France and Belgium and has already been sentenced to a total of 10 years imprisonment. It is notable that the conviction in France also concerned the rape of a sex worker. The OM therefore demands a substantial prison sentence of 8 years, with deduction of the time the suspect has spent in pre-trial detention.

The court will give its verdict in the case in two weeks.