This morning, the High Court once again postponed the hearing regarding the conditional release request for Cornelio Antonio Hermanus (67), who was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering Raul Croes in Dakota.
It was understood that Raul Croes’s family protested in Court as to why life sentences are given. They do not want Hermanus to be released. The Prosecutor General (PG) requested that the case be postponed because further investigation is still needed. The Court postponed the case for one year.
The processing of the case began on February 9, 2026, and the Court had previously postponed it. Today, the Court postponed it again because nothing is completely ready yet.
Present in the courtroom were members of the commission that evaluates conditional release requests. Also present was psychologist Boekhoudt, who assists the commission. A high-ranking police official involved in the process was also seen in attendance.
The family of the victim, Raul Croes—including the victim’s mother, father, siblings, and daughter—was also present. The sister, Gisela Croes, asked to speak and was heard by the Court.
The PG requested to postpone the hearing The Court pointed out that in August 2026, the Prosecutor General (PG) sent a letter to the Court in Curaçao. The PG informed the Court that a significant amount of work has been done by the commission, which consists of personnel from the KIA prison, probation office (Reclassering), the Government, and the Hunto foundation. There is a risk in granting Hermanus conditional release. Even police officers are working on the security plan. Hermanus has spent days at Stichting Eliezer Detox & Rehab. The PG pointed out that there is still no place for Hermanus to stay overnight. The PG believes it is best to postpone the case again for a period of six months to see how everything develops.
The lawyer wants conditional release Defense attorney Mr. Croes stated that Hermanus has spent a total of 44 years of his life in prison for the murders he committed. The lawyer noted that this month, Hermanus turns 68. He told the Court that Hermanus went to stay at Stichting Eliezer, but there is no place for him to stay overnight. Mr. Croes continued by saying that 20 years ago, Hermanus killed Raul Croes and that Hermanus regrets this. According to the lawyer, Hermanus sent a letter to the victim’s family. He believes conditions must be set for Hermanus to be granted conditional release. He stated that Hermanus is an ill person and no longer wants to be locked up in KIA. The lawyer believes the chance of Hermanus doing something similar again is very small.
The lawyer opposes the PG’s idea The Court noted that documents received show work is underway on a schedule for Hermanus to gradually reintegrate into the community. The Court asked the lawyer what he thinks of the PG’s proposal. Attorney Mr. Croes told the Court that he does not share the PG’s viewpoint.
No concrete plan The Court spoke with the director of Stichting Eliezer, who explained that they are working on another location in Jan Flemming and yet another location. The director explained that they are also working with Respaldo. He explained that the foundation helps people with problems, including addiction. The director told the Court that he is willing to take care of Hermanus, which is something new for Aruba. He stated that the staff would need training to handle Hermanus and estimated that things could begin within six months. He mentioned that Hermanus has spent the day at the foundation three times. The director explained that they have programs working with animals and plants, and that the people at the foundation know Hermanus. According to the director, the people were astonished to see Hermanus, as they thought he had died. They know him, and Hermanus knows them.
The Court asked if there is a backup plan (Plan B) if things do not turn out as planned. The director answered that it is a good question and that there isn’t one. The Court asked the chairperson of the commission evaluating life-sentenced prisoners, Mrs. Tromp, if there is an alternative plan. She replied not yet, stating that plans are being made for daytime stays at the foundation, but an overnight location cannot be guaranteed yet, though two possibilities are being studied. She stated that they must visit the location and ensure security. The Court asked if there is a treatment plan and if this has been discussed with Hermanus. Mrs. Tromp said that Hermanus is currently receiving treatment at KIA and has the assistance of psychologist Boekhoudt. The Court asked if there are plans for Hermanus to work, which is something very essential. The president pointed out that Hermanus is ill, diabetic, and has knee and vision problems, so she does not see him being able to do work.
The family protested Gisela Croes (54), the victim’s sister, took the floor. Highly emotional, she told the Court that she saw her brother lying dead on the ground. She stated she sees nothing changed in Hermanus and that the family believes a life sentence means life. She pointed out that Raul Croes’s daughter is present in the courtroom and had to grow up without her father. Gisela noted that Hermanus killed two people and remarked that if this is how sentences work, they should just abolish life imprisonment! She said that now they hear about seeking conditional release, a place to stay, and a place to work. Gisela remarked that the lawyer says Hermanus is remorseful: “In the past 20 years, no family has received a letter of remorse!”
She went on to say that they claim Hermanus has an illness—an illness that everyone has—and noted that she herself has to follow lifelong treatment. The sister protested, asking what guarantee there is that Hermanus will not kill someone again. She expressed that the family wants Hermanus to remain locked up and that he does not deserve to go free.
The brother of the victim Raul Croes also protested against the commission for saying that Hermanus cannot work.
The Court told Gisela that this is a very delicate matter, which is why this procedure exists. It cannot simply be said that Hermanus is going free. All points brought forward in Court must be taken into account before the Court makes a decision. The Court appreciated Gisela taking the floor.
The Court drew Hermanus’s attention The Court asked Hermanus about the programs discussed in Court, whether he is familiar with them, and what he thinks. Hermanus said that what he heard is new to him, but he is willing to follow the treatment. The Court stated that Hermanus heard how the family of Raul Croes, whom he killed, feels about this situation. The Court noted that the family complained that Hermanus never apologized to them. According to Hermanus, the same letter he presented to the Court asking for forgiveness was sent to the family, but the family refused to accept it. The Court drew Hermanus’s attention to the fact that he has the responsibility and must find a way to speak with the family; it is up to Hermanus to keep insisting on this. It does not end just because the family says they did not receive the letter. Hermanus remarked that he is locked up in KIA, to which the Court noted it was merely informing him of his responsibility.
Hermanus asked the family for forgiveness The Court asked Hermanus what he thinks of what the sister said about feeling the same way as 20 years ago. Hermanus said he understands the sister, but what he does not understand is why he is not getting a chance. The Court stated that the Court must duly take into account the thoughts of the victim’s family, how the program is going, and whether it works for Hermanus, who is responsible for this. Hermanus said he understands that it is their brother and family, and it hurts him deeply. He said he cannot turn back time and asked the family to forgive him for what happened, stating it was not his intention. He said he cannot sleep at night, and when he sleeps, he keeps thinking about the case. He wants to get out to get some fresh air and see the stars.
Postponing the case again The Court adjourned briefly to deliberate. After a short while, the Court returned and stated it is not ready to make a decision. The Court follows the PG’s proposal and rejects the lawyer’s request, postponing the case for one year. The Court wants an evaluation from the commission in charge of life sentences after six months. It instructed the PG and the lawyer to obtain information by March 1, 2027, indicating that if the March 1 report from the PG provides a reason for an earlier evaluation, the Court will schedule a date to hear the case sooner.