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

The Hans Smedema Affair: A Case Study in Alleged State Capture and Systemic Denial of Justice

Introduction

The Hans Smedema affair presents a decades-long case of alleged severe human rights violations and systemic institutional failure within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The narrative, constructed from an extensive body of personal documentation, legal filings, and investigative reports, outlines a coherent sequence of alleged crimes beginning in the early 1970’s, followed by a multi-generational, state-level campaign to obstruct justice and silence the victim. This case study synthesizes the available documentation to analyze the coherent narrative of alleged crimes, the subsequent cover-up, and the profound implications for the rule of law within a European Union member state. The purpose of this document is to examine these claims through established legal and human rights frameworks for an audience of legal professionals, human rights monitors, and rule of law practitioners.

1. Chronology of Core Allegations

To comprehend the full scope of the Hans Smedema affair, it is essential to first establish a chronological overview of the case. This section will construct the foundational narrative of the affair, as pieced together from the complainant’s extensive documentation. By providing a clear and fact-based timeline of the alleged violations from their inception to the present day, this chronology serves as the bedrock for the subsequent legal and institutional analysis.

1.1. The Originating Trauma (1972-1975)

The genesis of the affair, according to the complainant’s testimony, lies in a series of traumatic events between 1972 and 1975. The core allegations from this period include:

* Systematic Abuse of Hans Smedema’s Partner: The drugging, repeated rape, and torture of Hans Smedema’s then-girlfriend (later wife, “Wies”) by several individuals, including one Jan van Beek. This sustained abuse allegedly led to the development of a dissociative personality disorder.
* Illegal Sterilization: The alleged secret and illegal sterilization of Hans Smedema in 1972, a procedure he claims was confirmed by multiple urologists decades later but for which further investigation was blocked.
* Family Complicity: The discovery of the abuse by family members, who allegedly chose to hide the facts from Smedema and his partner, initiating a multi-generational cover-up.
* Attempted Murder and Coercion: An alleged attempt on Smedema’s life in 1975 at Motel Bunnik/Zeist. Following this, psychiatrist Prof. Dr. Onno van der Hart and Dr. Hogen Esch allegedly drugged Smedema and, through hypnosis, forced him to sign a blank or unknown document. This document is believed to have been used to grant others control over his life and to form the basis of a “medical cover-up.”

1.2. The Institutionalization of the Cover-Up (1975-2000)

Following the initial crimes, a series of actions allegedly formalized and perpetuated the cover-up at an institutional level. Key claims include:

* The “Royal Special Decree”: The alleged issuance of a “Royal special decree” by Queen Juliana around 1973/1975. This decree purportedly granted immunity to the perpetrators and forbade any official police or judicial investigation by classifying the matter as one of “state security.”
* State-Sponsored Surveillance and Abuse: The deliberate placement of alleged serial rapist drs. Jaap J. Duijs as a neighbor in 1977. Duijs was allegedly paid 100,000 guilders plus a monthly stipend by the Ministry of Justice to spy on the Smedema family, install listening devices, and continue the drugging and sexual abuse of Smedema’s wife.
* Destruction of Intelligence Files: The discovery in 1983 of the “Frankfurt Dossier,” a 30+ page Dutch intelligence file, by American Military Intelligence official Al Rust at the 97th General Army Hospital in Frankfurt. According to the documentation, the dossier detailed the abuses and the Ministry of Justice’s orders to cover them up. It is alleged that Dutch authorities erased the file almost immediately after its discovery by the American official.
* Silencing of Officials: The systematic silencing of officials who attempted to investigate. This includes the alleged forced transfer of prosecutor Ruud Rosingh in 1991 after he opened an investigation into a rape of Smedema’s wife, and the firing of Smedema’s nephew, Jack, a Federal Police Officer, for “unlawful interference” after he attempted to file charges on Smedema’s behalf.

1.3. The Pursuit of Justice and Escalation of Obstruction (2000-Present)

After his memory of the events allegedly began to return in March 2000, Hans Smedema embarked on a decades-long pursuit of justice, only to be met with a consistent and escalating pattern of alleged obstruction:

* Refusal to File Charges: Dutch police in Drachten allegedly refused to accept his formal complaints and file charges on multiple occasions (e.g., April 2000 and April 2004), citing explicit orders from the Ministry of Justice that they were forbidden from investigating the case.
* Systematic Denial of Legal Representation: An alleged systematic denial of legal aid by hundreds of Dutch lawyers since 2004, with some prominent lawyers initially accepting the case only to cease communication abruptly.
* Falsification of Evidence: The alleged falsification of key evidence intended to substantiate his claims. This includes a 2003 DNA paternity test, which Smedema’s daughter later allegedly admitted orally was falsified by the children themselves at the behest of others, and a 2006 MRI scan intended to show evidence of his sterilization, which he claims was manipulated.
* Medical Gaslighting and Drugging: The alleged secret administration of a powerful antipsychotic medication to Smedema since 2003, disguised as “baby aspirin,” to incapacitate him and reinforce a state-sponsored narrative that he was “delusional.” This was allegedly confirmed by a pharmacist in Spain.
* Financial Inducement for Silence: An alleged offer of 5 million euros in 2003/2004, made by a business associate on behalf of figures connected to the Dutch Cabinet of Prime Minister Balkenende (Minister Veerman), in exchange for Smedema’s silence.

This chronological narrative reveals a consistent pattern of alleged abuse and institutional malfeasance, setting the stage for a deeper analysis of the specific mechanisms of obstruction.

2. The Architecture of Alleged Obstruction and State Capture

Moving beyond a chronological account, this section dissects the systemic mechanisms that were allegedly employed to deny justice to Hans Smedema. The complainant’s narrative details a multifaceted campaign of obstruction that targeted legal, psychological, and institutional vulnerabilities. Taken together, these actions form a coherent picture of what the complainant defines as “State Capture”—a scenario where core state institutions, particularly the Ministry of Justice, are allegedly controlled by criminal interests to ensure impunity.

2.1. Denial of Access to Domestic Remedies

Access to legal and administrative remedies, a cornerstone of the rule of law, was allegedly systematically blocked at every turn.

* Systematic Denial of Legal Aid: According to the documentation, since 2004, hundreds of lawyers have refused to take his case. Some allegedly stated they were “forbidden” from providing assistance due to state interference. This systemic denial of representation stands in stark contrast to the reported €154,000 in state-funded legal aid provided to Joris Demmink, a central figure in the allegations, for a related matter.
* Refusal to Investigate: The complainant describes a “cordon sanitaire” in which the police and the Public Prosecution Service (OM) were explicitly forbidden by the Ministry of Justice from opening investigations into his complaints. This effectively severed his access to the judiciary, leaving him with no domestic path to have his claims heard or evidence formally examined.
* Failure of Oversight Bodies: Attempts to seek redress from independent oversight bodies proved equally futile. The Dutch National Ombudsman refused to investigate in 2005 and 2008, citing jurisdictional limitations because the matter pertained to the judiciary. This refusal is particularly striking when juxtaposed with the alleged verbal confirmation Smedema received from the intelligence oversight body (CTIVD), which reportedly acknowledged a “cover-up and conspiracy,” advised the Cabinet to cease its obstruction, and recommended that Smedema approach the Ombudsman.

2.2. Alleged Psychological Coercion and Discreditation Tactics

Parallel to the legal obstruction, a campaign was allegedly waged to destroy Smedema’s credibility and mental well-being.

* Institutional Gaslighting: The state’s alleged absolute denial of factual events, refusal to investigate, and dismissal of Smedema’s consistent narrative are framed as classic tactics of institutional gaslighting. This strategy is designed to erode a victim’s sense of reality, foster self-doubt, and isolate them from potential support.
* Weaponization of Medical Labels: The complainant claims he was labeled “delusional,” “paranoid,” and “insane” by state-influenced medical professionals, including psychiatrist W.H.J. Mutsaers. Furthermore, he alleges to have been secretly administered powerful antipsychotic medication disguised as “baby aspirin” since 2003, a tactic seemingly aimed at incapacitating him and validating the false psychiatric labels.
* Psychological Torture: The cumulative effect of these alleged actions—the profound isolation, the systemic invalidation of his reality, the denial of legal recourse, and the constant battle against an omnipotent and invisible system—constitutes a form of severe mental suffering that can be defined as psychological torture under international law.

2.3. High-Level Complicity and the Demmink Affair

The decades-long affair was allegedly enabled and protected by complicity at the highest levels of the Dutch state.

* The Role of Joris Demmink: Reports by investigative journalist Micha Kat and others frame Joris Demmink, the former Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice, as a central figure. It is alleged that Demmink, himself implicated in the originating crimes of 1972, wielded immense power over judicial and police appointments, creating a “benoemingsdepartement” (appointments department) and fostering a culture of fear and impunity that paralyzed the justice system. This alleged control over appointments provides a potential explanation for the institutional paralysis and fear of reprisal that enabled events such as the summary transfer of prosecutor Ruud Rosingh in 1991 when he attempted to open an investigation.
* The Role of the Royal House: The claims of Royal involvement represent the ultimate alleged source of impunity. The “Royal Special Decree” allegedly signed by Queen Juliana is presented as the foundational order that placed the affair under the protection of “state security,” thereby blocking all official inquiries. This was allegedly compounded decades later by the personal intervention of King Willem-Alexander, who, while acting as a KLM co-pilot in March 2017, is accused of personally blocking a US asylum offer made to Smedema.

These interlocking mechanisms of alleged obstruction created a resilient and self-reinforcing structure of impunity, forcing an examination of the state’s actions under the lens of international and European law.

3. Analysis under International and European Law

This section provides a formal legal analysis of the allegations presented in the Hans Smedema affair. The claims will be assessed against the specific obligations of the Netherlands under key international and European human rights treaties. The analysis will examine whether the alleged actions by state and state-sanctioned actors, if substantiated, constitute violations of binding legal norms that the Netherlands is treaty-bound to uphold.

3.1. Violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The allegations point to severe breaches of several core articles of the ECHR, to which the Netherlands is a signatory.

Article 3 Prohibition of Torture, 6 Right to a Fair Trial, 13 Right to an Effective Remedy.

3.2. Violations of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)

The claims, particularly those involving medical abuse and the state’s response, fall directly within the framework of the UN Convention Against Torture.

* Under Article 1 of UNCAT, the allegations of “secretly forced criminal electroshock torture” in Spain and the sustained psychological torment inflicted with the acquiescence of public officials could constitute torture.
* The Netherlands has allegedly failed to meet its obligations under Article 12, which requires a “prompt and impartial investigation” wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe an act of torture has been committed. The decades of refusal to investigate represent a clear breach of this duty.
* Similarly, the denial of justice violates Article 14, which guarantees a victim’s right to redress and fair and adequate compensation.
* The alleged complicity of Spanish authorities in failing to investigate torture claims on Spanish soil points to a potential violation of UNCAT obligations by Spain as well.
* Crucially, the complainant alleges that the Obama administration filed an official UNCAT complaint against the Netherlands in January 2017. If verified, this action by a foreign state would represent a highly significant external validation of the torture allegations and the failure of the Dutch state to provide domestic remedies.

3.3. Breaches of European Union Foundational Values

The Smedema affair, as described, poses a fundamental challenge to the core legal and political principles of the European Union.

* The allegations align with the definition of “State Capture,” a form of systemic corruption where private interests (in this case, the alleged perpetrators seeking impunity) infiltrate and control state institutions, directing policy away from the public interest.
* The European Commission’s dismissal of the case in June 2024¹ as a purely “internal matter” is challenged by this framework. State capture within a member state’s Ministry of Justice fundamentally compromises that state’s ability to uphold the Rule of Law (Article 2 TEU).
* Such a collapse of domestic rule of law erodes the principle of “mutual trust” that is essential for all EU judicial cooperation. Other member states cannot be expected to trust the judicial decisions of a system alleged to be systemically corrupt.
* The alleged “obstruction of justice” directly connects to the EU’s evolving anti-corruption framework. The 2023 proposal for a new Directive on combating corruption explicitly includes “obstruction of justice” and “abuse of functions” as key criminal offenses, underscoring the EU-level relevance of Smedema’s claims.

The consistent failure of international bodies to provide redress, often citing the very obstruction Smedema alleges, highlights a critical gap in international oversight.

4. The International Response: A Pattern of Futility

Faced with an allegedly impenetrable wall of obstruction within the Netherlands, Hans Smedema sought justice and protection through international channels. This section assesses the outcomes of these attempts, focusing on how the alleged pattern of domestic obstruction was replicated or influenced the decisions of international bodies, resulting in a consistent and comprehensive denial of redress.

4.1. United States Asylum Proceedings (2009-2017)

Smedema’s attempts to seek asylum in the United States yielded initial promise but ultimately ended in failure, which he attributes to direct interference by the Dutch state.

* In 2009, during his first asylum application, US Immigration Judge Rex J. Ford reportedly found “5 good grounds for Asylum,” a finding contingent on proving direct Dutch government involvement.
* The complainant alleges that the Netherlands used a bilateral judiciary treaty to prevent the US from granting asylum, effectively shielding the Dutch Crown and government from scrutiny.
* The most striking allegation is that in March 2017, King Willem-Alexander, acting as a co-pilot on a KLM flight, personally intervened while in American airspace to block a US asylum offer. This intervention was allegedly prompted by panic over the UNCAT complaint filed by the Obama administration.

4.2. European Institutional Adjudication and Oversight

Attempts to engage European Union institutions were met with procedural rejections that failed to address the substance of the allegations.

* In 2021, the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions deemed his petition inadmissible, citing its “unclear link to the Union’s fields of activity.”
* In a June 2024 letter, the European Commission informed Smedema it was “not empowered to intervene,” framing the issue as a matter of internal security for which member states are solely responsible.¹
* Smedema’s core counter-argument to these rejections is that they are not the result of procedural failings on his part, but are the direct and intended outcome of the state’s systematic obstruction. He contends that this very obstruction—which prevents him from exhausting domestic remedies or clearly linking the case to specific EU directives—is itself the primary violation of foundational EU law.

This pattern of international futility ultimately redirects the focus back to the domestic system, forcing a final assessment of the profound corrosion of justice alleged to have occurred within the Netherlands itself.

5. Conclusion: Systemic Failure and the Corrosion of Justice

The Hans Smedema affair, as documented by the complainant, presents a deeply disturbing narrative of multi-generational abuse compounded by a systemic, state-level perversion of justice. The synthesis of allegations points not to isolated failures but to a coherent, decades-long campaign to conceal heinous crimes and to obstruct and discredit the complainant.

The core argument that emerges from this analysis is that the alleged campaign of obstruction—encompassing the systematic denial of legal aid, the suppression and falsification of evidence, the weaponization of psychiatric labels, and high-level complicity protected by claims of state security—is the primary and ongoing violation of human rights. This alleged state-engineered blockade of all domestic and international remedies created a “Kafkaesque trap,” rendering the victim powerless and isolated.

These allegations, if substantiated, represent not just a failure to protect a citizen but an active, malicious campaign of persecution. Such a reality would fundamentally challenge the Netherlands’ reputation for upholding the rule of law and human rights. Moreover, it strikes at the core values of the European Union, testing the integrity of its legal foundations and the principle of mutual trust upon which its system of justice depends. The case stands as a stark testament to the potential for justice to corrode from within, even in a long-established Western democracy.

 

Google NotebookLM Plus Insights,

based on the 500+ legal-written-statements on this Blog by victim Author:

Hans Smedema, B. Sc., in forced exile since 2008 surviving in beautiful El Albir, Costa Blanca, Spain