Report: Netherlands fails to protect women from forced marriage, genital mutilation
The Netherlands is failing to prevent forced marriages, abandonment abroad, and female genital mutilation, putting hundreds to thousands—mostly girls and women—at serious risk each year. A new study by research agency Right to Rise, commissioned by the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security, finds that legal gaps, inconsistent cooperation among agencies, and delayed identification of potential victims hinder the country’s response.
The report highlights the United Kingdom’s use of so-called hybrid protection orders, which combine civil and criminal law. These orders are civil measures designed to protect victims, but if violated, the breach is treated as a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in prison. British experts say this dual approach strengthens protections and fills gaps left by existing legal tools.
“We see in the United Kingdom that combining civil and criminal elements in protective orders makes it possible to respond more effectively to threats and to put the victim, rather than the perpetrator, at the center,” the researchers stated.
The study identifies several structural and legal obstacles in the Netherlands that often delay or undermine protection for victims. Authorities frequently miss early warning signs of violence or recognize them too late. Even when signs are spotted, professionals often struggle to address these sensitive issues. Risk assessments vary widely, resulting in either excessive caution or premature intervention.
The researchers also found that agencies work in isolation, share too little information and lack a unified approach. Existing measures, including child protection orders and restraining orders, often do not align with the needs of victims and are used sparingly. Another major problem is that Dutch court decisions are not recognized abroad, making it harder to pressure potential perpetrators.
Group pressure plays a major role in these crimes, but current protections offer only temporary relief. The researchers argue that hybrid orders, which combine civil and criminal law, can provide more customized and effective safeguards. In the British system, these orders can also be requested not only by victims themselves but by professionals, teachers or family members.
The study emphasizes that introducing hybrid protection orders in the Netherlands would fit an ongoing trend in Dutch law, where the boundaries between civil, administrative and criminal law are increasingly blurred to create innovative cross-domain solutions.
To improve prevention and protection, the researchers recommend several steps. They urge authorities to invest in community education, strengthen professionals’ skills, and promote sustained cooperation among all relevant agencies. They also call for the introduction of a civil protection order enforceable under criminal law, modeled on the British example.
Additional recommendations include establishing robust support and enforcement frameworks, ensuring structural training for judges, legal staff, police and prosecutors, and guaranteeing continuous monitoring and adequate enforcement when orders are breached.
The report stresses that any approach must avoid stigmatization and unintended exclusion. Authorities should work closely with communities to raise awareness, build shared responsibility and achieve lasting change "without fueling distrust or discrimination."
In Belgium, Denmark and Norway, a variety of preventive protective orders are technically available, but their use remains extremely limited. These countries face many of the same barriers as the Netherlands, and the overall level of protection there is not substantially higher.
