Last Updated 09/08/2025 published 09/08/2025 by Hans Smedema

Legal Analysis and Avenues for Redress: The 2016 Court Case of Hans Smedema

 

I. Executive Summary

 

This report provides a legal analysis of the long-standing grievances articulated by Hans Smedema, focusing particularly on the 2016 defamation case that led to his imprisonment in 2017. Mr. Smedema’s narrative describes a complex history of legal disputes, alleging judicial corruption, a systematic denial of defense rights, and a pervasive state-level cover-up involving the Dutch Ministry of Justice and intelligence services. The circumstances of the 2016 trial, where he claims he was absent, without legal representation or funds, and suffering from severe mental health issues, form the core of his concerns regarding procedural fairness.

The analysis indicates that Mr. Smedema’s account raises substantial questions concerning potential violations of fundamental rights under Dutch law, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and international human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Key areas of concern include the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, the right to liberty and security of person, and the right to an effective remedy. The interconnected nature of the alleged procedural irregularities—from the voiding of earlier cases to the conduct of the 2016 trial—suggests a pattern of due process concerns. This cumulative effect of alleged violations could be argued to represent systemic failures within the Dutch justice system, potentially strengthening arguments for consideration by international human rights bodies.

While securing redress and compensation in such a protracted and sensitive case presents significant challenges, various domestic and international legal mechanisms may be available. These include avenues for challenging judicial decisions, lodging complaints against official misconduct, and pursuing civil claims for state liability for human rights abuses. The report also addresses the critical issue of obtaining legal representation, exploring the ethical obligations of lawyers and practical strategies for securing assistance, including pro bono services.

 

II. Background of the Case: Hans Smedema’s Allegations and the 2016 Defamation Verdict

 

Mr. Hans Smedema describes a profound and enduring legal struggle, characterizing himself as the victim of a vast conspiracy and cover-up spanning over five decades. His account details a history of disputes, including earlier cases in 2009 and 2011/12, which he states were “corruptly void in 2013 because of a technical mistake” [User Query]. He asserts that this voiding was a deliberate act, intended to shield individuals from prosecution by the United States [User Query].

The immediate focus of Mr. Smedema’s current concerns is a defamation case initiated in 2016 by Jaap Duijs, whom Mr. Smedema identifies as his “enemy” and a “serial rapist”.1 This 2016 case, identified by parketnummer 18/012870-15, culminated in a hearing on August 4, 2016, and a subsequent verdict on August 18, 2016.1 Mr. Smedema claims he was unable to attend this hearing due to a lack of funds to travel from Spain, having been financially devastated by what he describes as corrupt actions by the Leeuwarden District Court and the Arnhem Court of Appeal in prior proceedings.1 He further states that he had no legal representation at the 2016 hearing, was suffering from deep depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and was under the influence of “secret fake-baby-aspirin-antipsychotic”.1 Following this verdict, he was imprisoned for 13 months upon his arrival at Schiphol Airport on March 16, 2017 [User Query].

Mr. Smedema attributes his predicament to a “largest cover-up and conspiracy” orchestrated against him, alleging that crucial legal information held by the Ministry of Justice and the Dutch intelligence services (AIVD/CTIVD) was deliberately hidden from him.1 He contends that his online publications, which formed the basis of the defamation charges, were merely truthful disclosures and acts of “self-defense”.1 He further claims that police and public prosecutors were “forbidden to investigate” the alleged rapes he reported, suggesting this was done to protect the Royal House.1 Notably, Mr. Smedema also references a prior offer of 5 million euros in 2004 from the Balkenende Cabinet, conveyed by Minister Veerman, as a “buy-off offer” with secrecy restrictions, which he now demands as an advance on his rightful compensation.1

The 2016 verdict of the Leeuwarden District Court (parketnummer 18/012870-15) confirms that Mr. Smedema was charged with intentionally harming the honor and good name of J.J. Duijs and B. van Someren, a chief police agent, through online publications on his website, www.hanssmedema.eu, between September 16, 2013, and October 23, 2013.1 The accusations included calling Mr. Duijs a rapist and Mr. Van Someren corrupt, a “corrupt scoundrel,” and alleging he lied in official reports and pressured Mr. Smedema’s wife.1

Mr. Smedema admitted to publishing the texts but denied their defamatory nature, asserting their truthfulness.1 The court, however, found the texts defamatory, stating that Mr. Smedema “failed to substantiate his allegations in any way” and that his statements did not fall under the protection of freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (EVRM).1 The court emphasized that freedom of expression is not absolute and carries responsibilities, particularly when attacking the reputation of others.1 It concluded that the charges were “legally and convincingly proven”.1

The sentence imposed was 10 months of imprisonment, with 5 months unconditional and 5 months suspended under a 3-year probationary period. Additionally, Mr. Smedema was ordered to pay €5,000 to Mr. Duijs and €1,500 to Mr. Van Someren, along with a special condition to remove and refrain from posting defamatory content online.1 The court noted Mr. Smedema’s previous convictions for similar offenses, indicating a high risk of recidivism and a perceived lack of insight into the harmfulness of his actions.1 Mr. Smedema states that an appeal was impossible due to the absence of a lawyer, rendering the verdict “definitief” (final).1

A critical point of contention arises from Mr. Smedema’s assertion that his statements were “the truth” and an act of “self-defense”.1 Dutch defamation law, specifically Article 261(3) of the Dutch Criminal Code, provides a defense if the perpetrator “acted in necessary defense, or could in good faith assume that the alleged fact was true and that the public interest required the allegation”.2 Mr. Smedema explicitly states that this “crucial context principle” (referring to Article 261(3)) was “NOT” discussed in the verdict.1 If the court indeed failed to adequately address or apply this statutory defense, it would represent a significant procedural omission, potentially impacting the fairness of the trial. The court’s statement that Mr. Smedema “failed to substantiate his allegations” 1 does not necessarily mean this defense was considered and rejected; it could imply it was not properly explored or allowed to be developed within the proceedings. This could indicate a fundamental flaw in the trial process, where the court’s reasoning was incomplete, leading to a conviction that might not have been upheld had the defense been properly considered.

The circumstances surrounding Mr. Smedema’s presence and representation at the 2016 trial also raise significant concerns. He explicitly states he was “deeply depressed with PTSD and secret fake-baby-aspirin-antipsychotic” and had “no money, no Lawyer”.1 The court proceeded with the trial

in absentia, acknowledging his absence and lack of counsel.1 The right to legal assistance is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial, particularly for indigent defendants, as enshrined in Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR.7 While the Dutch legal aid system generally provides for state-financed legal aid for those of limited means and offers duty lawyers for individuals deprived of liberty 9, Mr. Smedema’s claim that lawyers refused him for “unknown reasons” or were “not allowed to help” by “order of Justice” 1 suggests a potential breakdown in the accessibility of legal aid or direct interference with it. The combination of his severe mental health issues, financial hardship, and the absence of legal representation during a criminal trial, especially if legal aid was genuinely inaccessible or refused due to alleged state interference, could constitute a serious violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR, potentially rendering the trial fundamentally unfair. The fact that the court proceeded knowing his financial and mental state further amplifies this concern.

 

III. Analysis of Alleged Violations of Dutch, EU, and UN Law

 

A. Right to a Fair Trial (Article 6 ECHR, ICCPR, UDHR)

 

The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of democratic societies, ensuring that individuals receive a just hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable time.7 Mr. Smedema’s claims raise several points of potential non-compliance with these fundamental principles.

Firstly, the alleged lack of legal representation is a critical issue. Mr. Smedema states he had “no Lawyer” and “no money” for the 2016 trial.1 He further asserts that “Geen enkele advocaat durft het tegen de staatsveiligheid en laffe Koninklijk huis op te nemen. Of het is heimelijk voor mij als slachtoffer verboden” (No lawyer dares to take on state security and the cowardly Royal House. Or it is secretly forbidden for me as a victim).1 He specifically names Ad Speksnijder, a lawyer, who was allegedly “NIET toegestaan” (NOT allowed) to help him “in opdracht Justitie” (by order of Justice).1 Article 6(3)(c) ECHR explicitly guarantees the right to legal assistance, including free assistance when an individual lacks sufficient means and the interests of justice so require.7 The Dutch legal aid system is designed to provide state-financed legal aid for those of limited means, and duty lawyers are provided for individuals deprived of liberty.9 The explicit allegation that a lawyer was “not allowed” to provide assistance by “order of Justice” is a very serious claim. If substantiated, this would indicate direct state interference with the fundamental right to legal representation, going beyond mere financial inability to secure counsel. Such interference would represent a significant violation of Article 6 ECHR, as it would undermine the very essence of the right to a fair trial.

Secondly, the denial of defense rights is a recurring theme in Mr. Smedema’s account. He claims “Geen enkele verdediging is ooit toegestaan!” (No defense whatsoever has ever been allowed!) and specifically mentions the refusal to hear “getuigen a décharge” (witnesses for the defense) or allow “DNA testen” (DNA tests).1 He identifies several individuals who could serve as “best witnesses” to the alleged “gruwelijke doofpot” (horrifying cover-up) but were not heard.1 Article 6(3)(d) ECHR guarantees the right to examine or have examined witnesses on one’s behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.7 While Dutch law generally states that a judge cannot easily ignore a defense request to hear a witness, there are exceptions, such as when the testimony is not useful to the case or if confrontation would harm the victim.11 However, a blanket refusal to hear any defense witnesses or consider evidence such as DNA tests, as alleged by Mr. Smedema, would likely be viewed as a violation of the principle of equality of arms and the right to present one’s case effectively.

Thirdly, concerns arise regarding access to evidence and information. Mr. Smedema alleges “Achterhouden van cruciale gegevens en bewijzen” (Withholding of crucial data and evidence) by judges, not only from him but also from the Dutch public.1 He claims “hele dossiers” (entire dossiers) were hidden.1 He specifically points out that Article 261(3) of the Dutch Criminal Code, which provides a defense based on truth and public interest in defamation cases, was “NIET” (NOT) discussed in the verdict.1 This suggests a failure to consider a legally available defense. While the AIVD, as an intelligence service, does not disclose how it obtains information, and this can lead to partial acquittals in criminal cases due to a lack of public evidence 12, the general principle in Dutch criminal procedure is that the defense has the right to access the case file. This right can be temporarily restricted for certain interests, such as national security or witness protection, but such restrictions must be justified.13 The allegation of a “false appeal to state security due to involvement of the Royal House” 1 as a pretext for withholding information is particularly troubling. This creates a conflict between national security interests and individual human rights. The ECtHR requires such interferences to be “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a democratic society,” and it scrutinizes the state’s margin of appreciation in such cases.15 If information was withheld without a clear legal basis or if the “state security” claim was indeed a pretext, it could violate Mr. Smedema’s right to a fair trial, particularly his right to adequate time and facilities for defense and to examine evidence (Article 6(3)(b) and (d) ECHR). The explicit mention of the Royal House suggests a perceived conflict of interest or abuse of power, which would undermine judicial independence and public trust.

Finally, the judicial impartiality and the implications of trial in absentia are significant. Mr. Smedema repeatedly accuses the court of being “corrupt” and “partijdige” (biased).1 He names specific judges and the prosecutor, accusing them of fraud for not adhering to international laws and not applying a fair legal process.1 The right to a fair trial includes the right to an “independent and impartial tribunal”]. Dutch law allows for the recusal of a judge if there are “facts or circumstances whereby judicial impartiality could be damaged”.19 The appearance of fairness is crucial, and a judge may need to recuse themselves even without actual bias.20 Mr. Smedema was not present at the 2016 hearing due to “geldgebrek” (lack of money) and was tried “bij verstek” (in absentia).1 While Dutch law allows for trials in absentia, and a defendant may choose to let their lawyer handle the defense, the court sometimes deems the defendant’s presence necessary.22 The ECtHR has held that when a person is tried in absentia without being aware of the proceedings, the defendant is entitled to a fresh trial when they are made aware.8 Mr. Smedema’s claim of being unable to attend due to financial hardship and mental health issues, coupled with the alleged lack of legal representation, raises significant fair trial concerns, as it could be argued that he was not truly aware of or able to participate in the proceedings.

 

B. Freedom of Expression (Article 10 ECHR, ICCPR, UDHR)

 

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right, protected under Article 10 ECHR, the UDHR (Article 19), and the ICCPR (Article 19).15 However, this right is not absolute and can be subject to limitations, including for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.15

Dutch law criminalizes “smaad” (defamation) and “smaadschrift” (libel), defined as intentionally harming a person’s honor or reputation by alleging a particular fact with the aim of making it public (Article 261 Dutch Criminal Code).2 “Laster” (aggravated defamation) occurs when the offender knows the statement is false (Article 262 Dutch Criminal Code).2 The 2016 verdict found Mr. Smedema guilty of “smaadschrift, meermalen gepleegd” (libel, committed multiple times).1 The court explicitly stated that Mr. Smedema’s accusations of rape and corruption were defamatory and not protected by freedom of expression, as he failed to substantiate them.1

A crucial aspect of Dutch defamation law is the “truth defense” provided in Article 261(3) of the Dutch Criminal Code. This article stipulates that “Neither defamation nor libel exists insofar as the perpetrator acted in necessary defense, or could in good faith assume that the alleged fact was true and that the public interest required the allegation”.2 Mr. Smedema explicitly claims that this crucial “context principle” (Article 261(3)) was “NOT” discussed in the verdict 1, despite his consistent assertion that his publications were “the truth” and an act of “self-defense”.1 In Dutch defamation cases, the burden of proof for the truth defense can, under certain circumstances, be reversed, meaning it can be up to the defending party to prove the truth of the statements.28 However, the court’s judgment simply states Mr. Smedema “failed to substantiate his allegations in any way”.1 If the court failed to address or properly apply Article 261(3), it would not merely be a matter of Mr. Smedema failing to prove his case, but a potential failure of the court to consider a legally available and relevant defense. This directly connects to the right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR), specifically the right to present one’s case effectively and have all relevant arguments considered by the tribunal. This could imply a fundamental flaw in the trial process, where the court’s reasoning was incomplete or biased, leading to a conviction that might not have been upheld had the defense been properly considered.

 

C. Right to Liberty and Security of Person (Article 5 ECHR, ICCPR, UDHR)

 

The right to liberty and security of person is a fundamental human right, protected by Article 5 ECHR, Article 9 of the UDHR, and Article 9 of the ICCPR.8 These provisions stipulate that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention, and deprivation of liberty must occur only on grounds and in accordance with procedures established by law.

Mr. Smedema was imprisoned for 13 months starting March 16, 2017, following his 2016 conviction for defamation.1 While this detention was formally based on a court order, the lawfulness of the detention is intrinsically linked to the lawfulness and fairness of the underlying conviction. If, as Mr. Smedema alleges, the 2016 conviction was obtained through a “corrupt” and “unfair” trial—marked by a lack of defense, hidden information, a trial in absentia, and concerns regarding his mental health—then the subsequent detention, even if formally based on a court order, could be argued as “arbitrary” under international human rights law.8 The ECtHR has indeed found violations of Article 5 where the detention was based on proceedings that were not fair.8 This means that challenging the lawfulness of his 13-month imprisonment requires a successful challenge to the fairness and legality of the 2016 trial. If the conviction is ultimately deemed to have violated Mr. Smedema’s fundamental rights, the period of imprisonment would then become a significant component of any claim for damages.

 

D. Right to an Effective Remedy (Article 13 ECHR, ICCPR, UDHR)

 

The right to an effective remedy ensures that individuals whose human rights have been violated have access to an accessible, binding, and effective legal remedy before a national authority, even when the violation is committed by state officials.29

A key aspect of this right is accessibility to legal aid. The Netherlands, as a signatory to the ECHR and with its own constitutional provisions, guarantees access to courts and state-financed legal aid for individuals of limited means.9 The Legal Aid Board (LAB) is responsible for administering this system, with eligibility determined by financial criteria.9 Mr. Smedema explicitly states he had “no money” and lawyers refused to help him.1 Furthermore, his claim that a lawyer was “NIET toegestaan” (NOT allowed) to help him “in opdracht Justitie” (by order of Justice) 1 suggests a potential breakdown in the legal aid system or direct interference with it, particularly in complex or politically sensitive cases. While duty lawyers are generally provided for those deprived of liberty 9, Mr. Smedema’s situation at the time of the 2016 trial (depressed, suffering from PTSD, without funds, and in Spain) indicates a potential failure to access or be provided with this fundamental right, raising questions about the effectiveness of the remedy available to him.

Mr. Smedema’s allegations also point to state interference and hidden information as barriers to an effective remedy. He claims to be the victim of “the largest cover-up and conspiracy against me while keeping all crucial legal information available at the Ministry of Justice and AIVD/CTIVD hidden from me” [User Query]. He further states that the police and Public Prosecution Service (OM) were “verboden om onderzoek te doen” (forbidden to investigate).1 The AIVD, as the Dutch intelligence service, is subject to parliamentary and independent oversight, including the CTIVD.32 While the CTIVD can investigate complaints against intelligence services, it is legally bound not to disclose state secrets in its reports to the public, even to the complainant.33 AIVD information is also generally not used as public evidence in criminal cases because its sources and methods are kept secret, which can lead to acquittals due to a lack of public evidence.12 This creates a fundamental challenge: Mr. Smedema cannot access the information he believes is critical to his defense or to prove state misconduct, precisely because it is deemed a state secret. This directly impacts his right to an effective remedy, as he cannot fully present his case or challenge the state’s actions if the evidence is perpetually hidden. While the ECtHR has recognized that national security considerations can limit procedural rights, it maintains that a fair balance must be struck, and the applicant should be able to contest the authorities’ decision that national security is at stake.18 This highlights a systemic challenge in holding states accountable for alleged human rights violations when national security is invoked, suggesting that any domestic remedy might be inherently ineffective if critical information remains inaccessible.

Furthermore, Mr. Smedema’s claim that “it is forbidden for police and OM to investigate” 1 the alleged rapes and conspiracies, potentially due to Royal House involvement, is a profound accusation of a breakdown in the rule of law. In the Netherlands, public bodies and civil servants have a duty to report knowledge of serious crimes (Article 162 Code of Criminal Procedure).34 If the police and OM were indeed prohibited from investigating, it would imply a direct obstruction of justice and a violation of the state’s duty to investigate and prosecute serious crimes. This would severely undermine the principle of legal equality and access to justice, suggesting a potential abuse of power at the highest levels of government where certain individuals or institutions might be perceived as being above the law. This would be a significant factor in any human rights complaint.

 

Table 1: Alleged Violations and Corresponding Legal Provisions

 

Allegation Category	Specific Claim (from Mr. Smedema’s account)	Relevant Dutch Law/Procedure	Relevant EU Law (ECHR Article)	Relevant UN Law (ICCPR/UDHR Article)	Brief Explanation of Violation
Denial of Fair Trial	“no money, no Lawyer, and was deeply depressed with PTSD” during 2016 trial; “no Lawyer, and was deeply depressed with PTSD” 1	Legal Aid Act, Dutch Criminal Procedure (Trial in Absentia) 9	Article 6(3)(c) (Right to legal assistance) 7	ICCPR Article 14(3)(d) (Legal assistance for indigent defendants) 27	Denial of access to legal counsel for an indigent defendant, especially given mental health vulnerabilities, potentially rendering the trial unfair.
Denial of Fair Trial	“Geen enkele verdediging is ooit toegestaan!” (No defense whatsoever has ever been allowed!); Refusal to hear “getuigen a décharge” (witnesses for the defense) or allow “DNA testen” (DNA tests) 1	Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (Witness examination rules) 11	Article 6(3)(d) (Right to examine witnesses) 7	ICCPR Article 14(3)(e) (Right to examine witnesses) 27	Failure to allow the presentation and examination of defense witnesses or crucial evidence, violating the principle of equality of arms and the right to present one’s case.
Denial of Fair Trial / Effective Remedy	“Achterhouden van cruciale gegevens en bewijzen” (Withholding of crucial data and evidence) by Ministry of Justice and AIVD/CTIVD; “hele dossiers” hidden 1	Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (Access to case files); Wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten (Wiv) 12	Article 6(1) (Fair trial, access to evidence); Article 13 (Effective remedy) 7	ICCPR Article 14(3)(b) (Adequate time/facilities for defense); UDHR Article 8 (Effective remedy) 24	Inability to challenge state actions or present a full defense due to withheld information, creating a “catch-22” where domestic remedies are ineffective.
Freedom of Expression	Publications were “the truth” and “self-defense”; Article 261(3) (truth defense) “NIET” (NOT) discussed 1	Article 261(3) Dutch Criminal Code (Truth defense) 2	Article 10 (Freedom of expression) 15	UDHR Article 19 (Freedom of opinion and expression) 24	Failure of the court to adequately consider or apply a statutory defense for defamation, potentially infringing on the right to freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial.
Right to Liberty and Security	Imprisonment for 13 months on March 16, 2017, after a “corruptly void” prior case and a 2016 sentence where “nobody was present, and I had no money, no Lawyer, and was deeply depressed” [User Query]	Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (Lawful detention) 36	Article 5 (Right to liberty and security) 8	UDHR Article 9 (Freedom from arbitrary detention); ICCPR Article 9 (Freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention) 24	Detention may be considered arbitrary if the underlying conviction is found to be fundamentally flawed due to violations of fair trial rights.
Right to an Effective Remedy / Rule of Law	Lawyers “not allowed to help by for me only unknown reasons” by “order of Justice”; Police and OM “verboden om onderzoek te doen” (forbidden to investigate) 1	Dutch Legal Aid Act (Access to legal aid); Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure (Duty to investigate crimes) 9	Article 13 (Effective remedy) 29	UDHR Article 8 (Effective remedy); ICCPR Article 2 (Effective remedy) 24	Alleged state interference with legal assistance and obstruction of criminal investigations, undermining the rule of law and access to justice.

 

IV. Avenues for Redress and Compensation

 

A. Domestic Legal Mechanisms

 

Mr. Smedema’s claims, if proven, could potentially be addressed through several domestic legal avenues in the Netherlands, although the passage of time and the finality of the 2016 verdict present significant challenges.

Procedures for challenging judicial decisions typically involve appeal and cassation. In Dutch criminal cases, a convicted person generally has 14 days to lodge an appeal with a higher court.38 The appeals court conducts a new review of the case, and may uphold the conviction, acquit the person, or discharge them from prosecution.38 Mr. Smedema explicitly states that an appeal was “onmogelijk bij gebrek aan advocaat, dus Hoge Raad ook onmogelijk. Vonnis is daarmee nu direct definitief!” (Appeal impossible due to lack of a lawyer, so Supreme Court also impossible. Verdict is therefore now immediately final!).1 While it is true that a lawyer is not strictly mandatory for all criminal proceedings, it is highly advisable.39 The alleged inability to secure legal assistance, particularly if due to state interference as Mr. Smedema claims, could be argued as an effective denial of his right to appeal. Following an appeal, the option to lodge an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court remains, which focuses on legal application rather than factual review.38 For cases involving serious miscarriages of justice, extraordinary review mechanisms, such as “herziening,” exist, though they are rare and have stringent criteria.41

Mechanisms for complaints against judicial misconduct or corruption are also available. Complaints about a judge’s personal behavior (as opposed to their legal decisions) can be directed to the Judicial Conduct Committee.42 However, this mechanism does not alter the legal outcome of a verdict. Allegations of corruption against judges or other public officials can be reported to the Public Prosecution Service (OM) or the FIOD/Anti-Corruption Center.43 The Rijksrecherche (National Criminal Investigation Department) is specifically tasked with investigating criminal behavior by civil servants, including judges, and operates under the authority of the OM to ensure independence from political influence.34 Mr. Smedema’s explicit accusation of “fraude” (fraud) against the judges and prosecutor in his case 1 falls within the scope of such reports.

Civil claims for state liability (onrechtmatige daad) for human rights violations or judicial errors represent another potential avenue. Under Dutch law, the State is primarily liable for damages caused by a judge in the performance of their official duties]. A civil claim based on an “onrechtmatige daad” (wrongful act or tort) against the state is possible under Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW).44 For such a claim to succeed, five conditions must generally be met: an unlawful act, attributability of the act to the perpetrator, damage, a causal link between the act and the damage, and relativity.44 An “unlawful act” can encompass infringements of rights or acts/omissions contrary to statutory duty or unwritten social conduct.44 While Dutch law generally holds that damages resulting from unlawful judicial acts should, in principle, remain with the citizen, the criteria for awarding compensation in such cases are influenced by European Union law, particularly the Köbler jurisprudence, which pertains to manifest violations of Union law by the highest national courts.47 Additionally, for events occurring on or after November 15, 2016, collective actions for monetary damages can be initiated by a foundation or association representing similar interests.48

Procedures and standards for compensation for unlawful detention are also relevant. Compensation for “onterechte detentie” (unlawful detention) can be claimed under Article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for periods of police custody or pre-trial detention, typically if the case is terminated without conviction.36 Standard compensation rates apply for such periods.37 Mr. Smedema was imprisoned for 13 months following his 2016 conviction [User Query]. If the underlying conviction is subsequently overturned or deemed fundamentally flawed due to significant human rights violations, then the detention based on that conviction could become a basis for a claim for damages for unlawful detention, even if it was formally legal at the time it was served.

 

B. European and International Legal Mechanisms

 

Given the nature of Mr. Smedema’s allegations, particularly those concerning fair trial rights and alleged state interference, recourse to international human rights bodies may be a crucial path.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is the primary international judicial mechanism for addressing violations of the ECHR, which protects rights such as the right to a fair trial (Article 6) 7, freedom of expression (Article 10) 15, the right to liberty (Article 5) 8, and the right to an effective remedy (Article 13).29 For an application to the ECtHR to be admissible, several strict criteria must be met. The application must generally be submitted on the official form, include all requested information and supporting documents (such as national judgments), and not be anonymous.49 Crucially, the applicant must demonstrate that they have

exhausted all domestic remedies, meaning they have pursued their case through all available national courts, up to the highest court in the State.49 Failure to do so typically leads to inadmissibility, as the Convention system operates on the principle of subsidiarity, allowing national legal systems the first opportunity to address complaints.50 The application must also be lodged within six months of the date of the final domestic decision.49 The applicant must be a “victim” of the alleged violation (direct, indirect, or potential), and the violation must be attributable to a State that has ratified the Convention.49 Additionally, the application must not constitute an abuse of the right of application, such as by submitting misleading information or using abusive language.49 Lawyers advising on ECtHR applications are expected to thoroughly explain the prospects of success, the length of proceedings, and potential costs.50

The potential relevance of other UN human rights mechanisms should also be considered. As the Netherlands is a party to the ICCPR and the UDHR 26, if domestic and ECtHR remedies are exhausted or prove ineffective, a communication might, as a last resort, be submitted to the UN Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. This process is generally complex and lengthy, but it allows individuals to allege violations of rights such as fair trial, freedom of expression, and liberty.

 

C. Addressing Challenges in Securing Legal Representation

 

Mr. Smedema’s repeated assertion that lawyers refused his case for “unknown reasons” or were “not allowed to help” 1 highlights a significant barrier to justice.

Ethical obligations of Dutch lawyers generally allow them to decline cases; they are not obligated to accept every matter (“geen ministerieplicht”).52 Lawyers may refuse a case due for various reasons, including a conflict of interest 52 or if they do not “in good conscience believe it to be just”.52 Lawyers are bound by an obligation of secrecy and legal professional privilege, which generally prioritizes the client’s right to confidential communication over the public interest in disclosing information.53 This privilege can be set aside in specific, exceptional circumstances, such as when a lawyer is suspected of serious crimes.54 Mr. Smedema’s claims of state security involvement and lawyers being “not allowed” to help 1 raise questions about whether lawyers are genuinely refusing due to perceived state pressure, fear of repercussions, or a belief that the case is unwinnable given the alleged circumstances. States are recognized to have broad discretion in national security matters, although the ECtHR scrutinizes this discretion to ensure it is not abused.16 Lawyers might be hesitant if they believe handling the case could compromise their professional standing, or if the state’s invocation of national security makes it impossible to effectively represent the client due to information withholding. This situation could create a chilling effect, making it exceptionally difficult for individuals in similar situations to access justice, even with legal aid provisions. This suggests a potential systemic barrier to justice for individuals alleging state misconduct, particularly when national security is invoked, underscoring the importance of pro bono legal networks and international human rights advocacy.

Despite these challenges, several strategies for finding legal assistance exist:

• Legal Aid Board (Raad voor Rechtsbijstand): The LAB provides state-financed legal aid for individuals of limited means, with eligibility based on income and assets.9 Mr. Smedema’s stated financial situation (“no money,” living off a credit card) 1 suggests he might qualify. While eligibility is typically assessed based on income from two years prior, a change of reference year is possible if current income has substantially decreased.9
• Pro Bono Services: Many large Dutch law firms engage in pro bono work, often taking on cases with significant social implications, fundamental legal principles, human rights, or rule of law concerns.57 These firms typically have committees to assess requests for pro bono assistance.58 Given the profound human rights implications of Mr. Smedema’s case, this could be a viable avenue. Organizations like Pro Bono Connect act as clearinghouses, connecting NGOs in need of pro bono legal support with law firms.57
• Legal Services Counters (LSC): These “front offices” provide primary legal aid, information, advice, and referrals to private lawyers for more complex matters.9

 

D. Legal Implications of Prior State Compensation Offers

 

Mr. Smedema’s mention of a prior offer of 5 million euros in 2004 from Minister Veerman, on behalf of the Balkenende Cabinet, as an “afkoop bod” (buy-off offer) with “geheimhoudingsrestricties” (secrecy restrictions) 1 is a significant, yet ambiguous, piece of information. He now demands this amount as an “voorschot” (advance) on his damages.1

Under Dutch civil law, parties can agree to a settlement (“vaststellingsovereenkomst”) to resolve a dispute, and such an agreement typically precludes further claims if it includes “finale kwijting” (final discharge).59 These agreements are legally binding and can even deviate from mandatory law.59 However, if the offer was “partially completed, non-signed” or if the terms were not clearly accepted by Mr. Smedema, it might not constitute a binding settlement.60 The Dutch Chora judgment provides a relevant precedent, indicating that an initial ex-gratia payment (compensation not necessarily for an unlawful act) did not bar later reparation claims if a direct link to a wrongful act could be established and the initial payment form was incomplete.60

The timing of the 2004 offer is also significant, as it predates the 2016 defamation case and Mr. Smedema’s subsequent imprisonment. If Mr. Smedema did not formally accept the 2004 offer with finality, or if it was not formally concluded as a “vaststellingsovereenkomst met finale kwijting,” it would not necessarily prevent him from pursuing current claims for damages. The existence of such a large prior offer, particularly if it was tied to secrecy, could be interpreted in several ways: as an acknowledgment of some state awareness of issues (though not necessarily an admission of specific legal liability), an attempt to silence Mr. Smedema, or simply a goodwill gesture. Its legal weight in any current claim for damages would heavily depend on its precise nature and whether it was formally concluded as a binding settlement. The existence of such a large prior offer, particularly if it was tied to secrecy, could be used as evidence of the state’s awareness of significant issues, even if not an admission of specific legal liability. It could potentially influence the perceived scale of damages or the state’s willingness to engage in future settlements.

 

Table 2: Domestic and International Avenues for Redress

 

Avenue	Purpose/Scope	Legal Basis	Key Requirements/Considerations	Potential Outcome	Challenges/Limitations (specific to Mr. Smedema’s case)
Appeal/Cassation (Dutch Criminal Case)	Challenge the 2016 conviction; Seek acquittal or discharge from prosecution.	Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure 38	Strict 14-day time limit for appeal; Exhaustion of appeal before cassation; Focus on legal application in cassation.	Acquittal, discharge from prosecution, or upholding of conviction.	Mr. Smedema claims appeal was impossible due to lack of lawyer, making verdict final.1 If this is effectively a denial of appeal rights, it could be a basis for international complaint.
Complaint against Judicial Misconduct/Corruption	Address alleged judicial bias, fraud, or misconduct by judges/prosecutors.	Judicial Conduct Rules; Dutch Criminal Code (bribery, fraud); Code of Criminal Procedure 34	Focuses on personal behavior, not legal decisions; Requires specific details of misconduct; Criminal complaints require investigation by OM/Rijksrecherche.	Disciplinary action against officials; Criminal prosecution (rare for judges).	Does not directly overturn verdict; High burden of proof for corruption; Alleged state interference may hinder investigation.
Civil Claim for State Liability (Onrechtmatige Daad)	Seek compensation for damages (material/immaterial) due to alleged human rights violations or judicial errors by the state.	Article 6:162 BW (Dutch Civil Code); Article 42(1) Wet rechtspositie rechterlijke ambtenaren 44	Must prove unlawful act, attributability, damage, causality, relativity; Influenced by EU law on judicial error (Köbler jurisprudence); Collective action possible for recent events.	Monetary compensation for damages.	High burden of proof for judicial error; Damages for judicial acts generally remain with citizen; Complexity of proving state-level conspiracy.
Compensation for Unlawful Detention	Seek compensation for 13-month imprisonment if underlying conviction is deemed unlawful.	Article 89 Code of Criminal Procedure 36	Primarily for pre-trial detention if later acquitted/discharged; For post-conviction detention, requires successful challenge to conviction’s legality.	Standardized daily compensation rates; Reimbursement of defense costs.	Dependent on overturning or deeming the 2016 conviction fundamentally flawed due to human rights violations.
Application to European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)	Allege violations of fair trial (Art. 6), freedom of expression (Art. 10), liberty (Art. 5), effective remedy (Art. 13) by the Dutch State.	ECHR Articles 5, 6, 10, 13 7	Exhaustion of domestic remedies (all national appeals); 6-month time limit from final domestic decision; Victim status; Not an abuse of right of application; Attributable to State.	Finding of violation; Just satisfaction (compensation); Recommendation for state action.	Mr. Smedema claims inability to appeal domestically 1, which must be convincingly argued as effective denial of remedy. The 6-month rule is critical.
Communication to UN Human Rights Committee	Allege violations of ICCPR rights (e.g., fair trial, liberty, expression) by the Dutch State.	ICCPR Optional Protocol 26	Requires exhaustion of all domestic and other international remedies (e.g., ECtHR); Complex and lengthy procedure; Not legally binding, but recommendations carry moral weight.	Finding of violation; Request for state action/remedy.	Typically a last resort; Recommendations are not directly enforceable; Requires strong legal argumentation.

 

V. Conclusion and Recommendations

 

Mr. Smedema’s claims, when analyzed through the lens of Dutch, EU, and UN human rights law, present a compelling narrative of potential systemic failures and violations of fundamental rights. The allegations, particularly concerning the lack of a fair trial—manifested by the absence of legal representation, the denial of defense rights (such as hearing witnesses and conducting DNA tests), the conduct of a trial in absentia, and the alleged failure to consider a statutory truth defense—raise significant concerns under Article 6 of the ECHR and corresponding provisions in the ICCPR and UDHR. The assertion that crucial legal information was withheld by state entities, possibly under the pretext of national security, directly implicates the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 ECHR) and the broader principle of the rule of law. If the 2016 conviction is found to be fundamentally flawed due to these alleged human rights violations, then Mr. Smedema’s subsequent 13-month imprisonment could also be deemed unlawful or arbitrary under international human rights standards. The prior offer of compensation from the Dutch government, while ambiguous in its legal effect, adds another layer of complexity, potentially serving as an acknowledgment of underlying issues.

The cumulative nature of these alleged procedural irregularities, spanning multiple legal proceedings and involving various state actors, suggests a pattern that goes beyond isolated errors. This pattern could be argued to represent a continuous denial of due process and access to justice, which would be a powerful argument before international human rights bodies. The explicit claim of state interference preventing legal representation and investigations is particularly grave, as it strikes at the core of judicial independence and the state’s duty to uphold the law.

To pursue redress and compensation, a strategic and multi-faceted approach is recommended, considering both domestic and international avenues.

Specific, actionable recommendations for Mr. Smedema:

1. Thorough Documentation and Case Reconstruction: Systematically compile all available documentation related to every legal proceeding mentioned, including the 2009, 2011/12, and 2013 cases, as well as the 2016 defamation case and his imprisonment. This includes court summonses, verdicts, correspondence with legal aid providers, police, and the Public Prosecution Service, and any records pertaining to his attempts to secure legal representation. It is critical to gather all medical records that substantiate his claims of deep depression, PTSD, and the medication he was on during the 2016 period, as these could be crucial in arguing his inability to participate effectively in his defense. Any evidence related to the alleged 2004 compensation offer should also be meticulously gathered.
2. Immediate Search for Specialized Legal Counsel: Given the complexity and human rights dimensions of the case, it is imperative to secure legal representation from a firm or organization specializing in international human rights law, state liability, or complex criminal appeals, particularly those with experience in cases involving national security implications.

• Approach Pro Bono Organizations: Actively engage with Dutch law firms known for their pro bono work in human rights, rule of law, or public interest litigation.57 When approaching them, clearly articulate the case not merely as a personal grievance but as a potential pattern of systemic human rights violations, emphasizing the alleged state interference with legal representation and information access. Highlighting the alleged “forbidden investigations” and the “hidden information” paradox, which may deter other lawyers, could be a compelling factor for pro bono committees seeking cases with significant societal impact.
• Contact the Legal Aid Board (LAB): Re-apply for state-financed legal aid, explicitly detailing his current financial situation and how it prevents him from affording counsel. If his income has substantially decreased since the reference year, request a change of reference year for eligibility assessment.9 Document any refusal of legal aid and the stated reasons.

1. Strategic Review of Domestic Remedies: While Mr. Smedema states that an appeal was impossible, a specialized lawyer should meticulously review the possibility of any extraordinary domestic remedies, such as a request for “herziening” (extraordinary review) in the criminal case, which is reserved for very specific circumstances indicating a grave miscarriage of justice. Simultaneously, a civil claim for state liability based on “onrechtmatige daad” (wrongful act) should be explored, arguing that the alleged violations of fair trial rights constitute an unlawful act by the state, leading to damages including the 13 months of imprisonment. The alleged non-consideration of Article 261(3) and the denial of defense rights would be central to such a claim.
2. Preparation for European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Application: This appears to be a crucial avenue. With legal counsel, prepare a comprehensive application to the ECtHR. This application must meticulously address all admissibility criteria, particularly the exhaustion of domestic remedies. If Mr. Smedema was genuinely denied the ability to appeal domestically due to the lack of legal representation or state interference, this must be argued convincingly as an effective denial of an accessible domestic remedy. Strict adherence to the six-month time limit from the date of the final domestic decision is paramount.49 The application should frame the claims within specific ECHR articles (e.g., Article 6 for fair trial, Article 10 for freedom of expression, Article 5 for liberty, Article 13 for effective remedy), providing detailed factual and legal arguments for each alleged violation.
3. Consideration of UN Human Rights Mechanisms: If the ECtHR application is unsuccessful or deemed inadmissible, or in parallel as a long-term strategy, explore submitting a communication to the UN Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. This is a complex, last-resort mechanism, but it could provide another avenue for international scrutiny of the alleged human rights violations.
4. Strategic Public Advocacy: While Mr. Smedema already maintains a blog, any future public advocacy efforts should be carefully considered and coordinated with legal counsel to ensure they do not jeopardize ongoing legal proceedings or inadvertently lead to further defamation charges. Collaborating with reputable international human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) could help amplify his voice and draw broader attention to the systemic issues he alleges, potentially putting pressure on the Dutch government for a resolution.
5. Addressing the 2004 Compensation Offer: The legal implications of the 2004 compensation offer should be thoroughly analyzed by legal counsel. If it was not a formally concluded settlement with “finale kwijting,” it may not preclude current claims. Its existence could potentially be leveraged as evidence of the state’s prior awareness of significant issues, even if not an admission of specific legal liability.

By systematically pursuing these recommendations, Mr. Smedema may be able to navigate the complex legal landscape and seek redress for the profound injustices he believes he has endured.

Gemini Advanced Deep Research Insights!

Works cited

1. vonnis1882016-1.pdf
2. Netherlands – Defamation Laws – International Press Institute, accessed August 7, 2025, http://legaldb.freemedia.at/legal-database/netherlands/
3. The difference between insult, defamation and slander – Family Lawyer The Hague, accessed August 7, 2025, https://familylawyer-thehague.nl/defamation-and-slander/
4. Wat is smaad en laster – een juridische uitleg – AMBT Advocaten, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.ambtadvocaten.nl/kennisbank/wat-is-smaad-en-laster/
5. Rechtvaardigingsgrond artikel 261 lid 3 Sr. – Smaad en laster advocaat, accessed August 7, 2025, https://smaad-laster-advocaat.nl/rechtvaardigingsgrond-artikel-261-lid-3-sr/
6. Artikel 261 lid 3 Wetboek van Strafrecht – Maxius.nl, accessed August 7, 2025, https://maxius.nl/wetboek-van-strafrecht/artikel261/lid3
7. European Convention on Human Rights – Article 6, accessed August 7, 2025, https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/european-convention-human-rights-article-6
8. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Wikipedia, accessed August 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_6_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
9. Legal Aid in the Netherlands – Raad voor Rechtsbijstand, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.rvr.org/publish/pages/4883/brochure_legal_aid_in_the_netherlands_june_2021.pdf
10. Right to a Fair Trial – Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/right-to-a-fair-trial
11. Role and Position of Victims of Crime in the Dutch Criminal Law | Office of Justice Programs, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/role-and-position-victims-crime-dutch-criminal-law
12. Wordt AIVD-informatie ook in strafzaken gebruikt?, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.aivd.nl/onderwerpen/ambtsbericht/vraag-en-antwoord/wordt-aivd-informatie-ook-in-strafzaken-gebruikt
13. Worden de (proces)stukken in het strafproces voor de verdachte toegankelijker? – Strafrecht-advocaat.nl, accessed August 7, 2025, https://01-strafrecht-advocaat.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Processtukken-voor-de-verdachte.pdf
14. Weigeringsgronden volledige onthouding kennisneming – Strafrecht-advocaat.nl, accessed August 7, 2025, https://01-strafrecht-advocaat.nl/weigeringsgronden-volledige-onthouding-kennisneming/
15. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Wikipedia, accessed August 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
16. National security and European case-law – https: //rm. coe. int, accessed August 7, 2025, https://rm.coe.int/168067d214
17. Margin of Appreciation and Incrementalism in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights – Oxford Academic, accessed August 7, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/hrlr/article/18/3/495/5068636
18. Background note Expert Panel: Towards a common definition of public order and national security in international and temporary p – EUAA, accessed August 7, 2025, https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-01/2022_11_background_note_national_security_public_order_expert_panel_en.pdf
19. Wraking rechter – Strafrecht-advocaat.nl, accessed August 7, 2025, https://01-strafrecht-advocaat.nl/wraking-rechter/
20. Judicial Disqualification: The Motion to Recuse – MCP TEMPLATE 2, BASED ON TNR FONT, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.suffolk.edu/-/media/suffolk/documents/law/faculty/mcp/ch25judicialdisqualification_pdftxt.pdf?la=en&hash=72CFBABA8DEB2F420A00A5CE7C1BED9C4DF280AB
21. DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGES FOR BIAS – Supreme Court of NSW, accessed August 7, 2025, https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Publications/Speeches/2018-Speeches/Sackar_20180116.pdf
22. Wat gebeurt er als ik moet terechtstaan voor een strafbaar feit? – Rijksoverheid, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/rechtspraak-en-geschiloplossing/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-gebeurt-er-als-ik-moet-terechtstaan-voor-een-strafbaar-feit
23. Article 10: Freedom of Expression – JUSTICE, accessed August 7, 2025, https://justice.org.uk/article-10-freedom-expression/
24. Fact Sheet No. 26, The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention – ohchr, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet26en.pdf
25. OAS :: IACHR : Basic Documents in the Inter-American System, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/basics/convention.asp
26. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Rights Mapping and Analysis Platform, accessed August 7, 2025, https://rimap.unhcr.org/node/62858
27. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Wikipedia, accessed August 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights
28. Defamation and Privacy Law in the Netherlands – Carter-Ruck, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.carter-ruck.com/law-guides/defamation-and-privacy-law-in-netherlands/
29. Right to an effective remedy – Wikipedia, accessed August 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_an_effective_remedy
30. Constitutional court of Bosnia and Herzegovina | Article 13 of the ECHR – Right to an effective legal remedy – Ustavni sud Bosne i Hercegovine, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.ustavnisud.ba/en/article-13-of-the-echr-right-to-an-effective-legal-remedy
31. Legal aid | European e-Justice Portal, accessed August 7, 2025, https://e-justice.europa.eu/topics/taking-legal-action/legal-aid/nl_en
32. Als zoveel geheim is kan de AIVD dan wel gecontroleerd worden?, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.aivd.nl/onderwerpen/toetsing-toezicht-en-controle-aivd/vraag-en-antwoord/als-zoveel-geheim-is-kan-de-aivd-dan-wel-gecontroleerd-worden
33. Klachtenprocedure – CTIVD, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.ctivd.nl/klachtbehandeling/klachtenprocedure
34. First Evaluation Round Evaluation Report on the Netherlands, accessed August 7, 2025, https://rm.coe.int/16806c774e
35. Ambtelijke corruptie | Rijksrecherche.nl, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.rijksrecherche.nl/onderzoeken/ambtelijke-corruptie
36. www.rechtnet.nl, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.rechtnet.nl/strafrecht/schadevergoeding-na-onterechte-detentie/#:~:text=Schadevergoeding%20na%20onterechte%20detentie%20kan,na%20be%C3%ABindiging%20van%20de%20zaak.
37. Schadevergoeding na onterecht vastzitten – Gratis aanvragen – eersterechtshulp, accessed August 7, 2025, https://eersterechtshulp.nl/schadevergoeding-onterecht-vastzitten
38. Going to court | Administration of justice and dispute settlement …, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.government.nl/topics/administration-of-justice-and-dispute-settlement/going-to-court
39. Hoger beroep strafzaak – De Rechtspraak, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Naar-de-rechter/Hoger-beroep/Strafzaak
40. Moet ik een advocaat nemen voor mijn rechtszaak? | Rijksoverheid.nl, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/rechtspraak-en-geschiloplossing/vraag-en-antwoord/ben-ik-verplicht-een-advocaat-te-nemen-voor-mijn-rechtszaak-en-wat-kost-een-advocaat
41. Wrongful Convictions and Inquisitorial Process: The Case of the Netherlands – University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications, accessed August 7, 2025, https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=uclr
42. Making A Complaint · Customer Self-Service – Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/makeacomplaint/
43. Wilt u een signaal melden? | Corruptie – Openbaar Ministerie, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/corruptie/wilt-u-een-signaal-melden
44. Tort under Dutch law, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.maak-law.com/law-of-obligations-netherlands/tort-under-dutch-law/
45. R.J.P. Kottenhagen, Tort and Regulatory Law – RePub, Erasmus University Repository, accessed August 7, 2025, https://repub.eur.nl/pub/14271/R.J.P.%20Kottenhagen,%20Tort%20and%20Regulatory%20Law.pdf
46. Onrechtmatige daad (Nederland) – Wikipedia, accessed August 7, 2025, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onrechtmatige_daad_(Nederland)
47. De aansprakelijkheid van de Staat voor fouten van de rechter – UU Research Portal – Universiteit Utrecht, accessed August 7, 2025, https://research-portal.uu.nl/files/128614284/1981F_D_7E_0123F_20841F_302C_8D_C_12A_098_pdf.pdf
48. New collective action system in the Netherlands | International Bar Association, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail?ArticleUid=EC97D321-744E-40AD-AB3D-E5B3AE481B5D
49. The admissibility an application – ECHR, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/COURtalks_Inad_Talk_ENG
50. The European Court of human Rights – Questions & answers for lawyers, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/guide_echr_lawyers_eng
51. Human rights in the Netherlands – Government.nl, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.government.nl/topics/human-rights/human-rights-in-the-netherlands
52. Mag een advocaat een zaak weigeren? • 30 min. gratis intake, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.bernhaege.nl/veelgestelde-vragen-items/mag-een-advocaat-een-zaak-weigeren
53. English version of the Code of Conduct of the Netherlands Bar Association – CCBE, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/National_Regulations/DEON_National_CoC/EN_Netherlands_The_Rules_of_Conduct_of_Advocates.pdf
54. 02 – Type of privilege | Netherlands | Global Privilege and Professional Secrecy Guide, accessed August 7, 2025, https://resourcehub.bakermckenzie.com/en/resources/global-attorney-client-privilege-guide/europe-middle-east–africa/the-netherlands/topics/02—type-of-privilege
55. Vertrouwelijkheid | Nederlandse orde van advocaten, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.advocatenorde.nl/de-advocaat/kernwaarden/vertrouwelijkheid-1
56. ‘Geheimhoudingsplicht en verschoningsrecht dienen rechtsstatelijk doel’ | Nederlandse orde van advocaten, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.advocatenorde.nl/nieuws/geheimhoudingsplicht-en-verschoningsrecht-dienen-rechtsstatelijk-doel
57. Pro bono – NautaDutilh, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.nautadutilh.com/en/responsible-business/pro-bono/
58. Pro bono | Stibbe, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.stibbe.com/csr/pro-bono
59. Settlement of Civil Disputes: Overview (the Netherlands) | HVG Law, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.hvglaw.nl/wp-content/uploads/Settlement-of-Civil-Disputes-Overview-the-Netherlands2.pdf
60. The Dutch Chora Judgment: Ex-Gratia Payments and Compensation – Lieber Institute, accessed August 7, 2025, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/dutch-chora-judgment-ex-gratia-payments-compensation/
61. www.elhannouche.nl, accessed August 7, 2025, https://www.elhannouche.nl/schadevergoeding-na-rechterlijke-fouten/#:~:text=Persoonlijke%20aansprakelijkheid%20rechters&text=Artikel%2042%20lid%201%20van,zijn%20ambt%20aan%20derden%20toebrengt.