WILLEMSTAD – A recent press release by Justice Minister Shalton Hato regarding the July 30, 2025, ruling of the Joint Court of Justice has sparked criticism for what observers describe as “political selectivity” that undermines the principles of the rule of law.
While the court’s decision contains elements favorable to the minister, it also delivers clear rebukes on key points of his immigration detention policy. However, critics note that the minister’s press release presents only the positive aspects, omitting crucial rulings that directly impact human rights and the treatment of migrants.
Key Findings Omitted from Minister’s Statement
No Legal Basis for Automatic Detention – The court made it unequivocally clear that there is no legal basis for automatically detaining a person solely for entering Curaçao without documentation. This ruling directly prohibits the minister’s current policy of detaining all migrants upon arrival. The press release made no mention of this human rights milestone, despite its fundamental implications for future immigration policy.
Unlawful Prolonged Detention – The court ruled that continuing detention beyond six months was unlawful in this case, citing unexplained delays in processing appeals from rejected asylum seekers. This resulted in individuals being held in custody for months without justification. The minister’s statement did not address this finding.
Failure to Inform Migrants of Rights – The ruling found that immigration authorities failed to inform detainees during hearings that they could present personal circumstances—such as medical conditions—that might lead to less restrictive measures. In one case, a detainee with asthma should have had this considered explicitly. This oversight was labeled a failure by the court but ignored in the minister’s communication.
Release and Legal Costs – The court confirmed that the individuals involved were ultimately released and that the ministry must reimburse legal costs. This fact was also omitted from the official press release.
Concerns Over “Cherry Picking”
The omissions have led to accusations of deliberate “cherry picking” in the minister’s messaging. Legal commentators argue that such selective reporting is unacceptable—especially in cases involving human rights and deprivation of liberty.
“A Minister of Justice who selectively presents the truth risks undermining public trust not only in his own ministry but also in the rule of law itself,” one legal expert noted. “When political leaders treat the outcome of a court case as valid only when it suits them, it erodes confidence in democratic institutions.”
