Last Updated 05/08/2025 published 05/08/2025 by Hans Smedema

Estimating Damages for Prolonged Torture and State Capture in Human Rights Cases: The Hans Smedema Affair

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines the comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach required for assessing damages in complex human rights cases, particularly those involving prolonged torture and state capture. The analysis focuses on the “Hans Smedema Affair,” a case alleging over 50 years of systemic abuse by the Dutch state. The report details the types of damages—pecuniary and non-pecuniary—and the specialized professionals essential for their calculation. It underscores the international legal obligation for “full reparation,” which encompasses restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. A central theme is the unique complexities introduced by the alleged decades-long duration and systemic nature of the “State-Capture,” which necessitates a nuanced application of established methodologies and a focus on the full extent of the harm inflicted. The report emphasizes that such pervasive state misconduct demands a robust assessment that goes beyond standard calculations to account for the compounding effects of systemic injustice and the profound, long-term impact on the victim.

 

Introduction: The Hans Smedema Affair and the Right to Reparation

 

The “Hans Smedema Affair” is characterized as a “horrifying kafkaesque and orwellian (Royal) conspiracy in Netherlands history,” with Hans Smedema claiming to be a victim of decades-long torture and “State-Capture” orchestrated by the Dutch government, allegedly involving high-ranking officials and the Royal family.1 The specific allegations are extensive and deeply disturbing. The conspiracy is alleged to have begun in 1972 to protect a high-ranking official within the Ministry of Justice, Joris Demmink, whom Smedema refers to as a “rapist-traitor.” Smedema accuses Demmink of sexually assaulting his then-girlfriend (who later became his wife) and orchestrating a cover-up with the complicity of the Dutch government, including the Royal family.1

Further claims describe a secret decree issued by Queen Juliana around 1975 that allegedly rendered Smedema “De Facto Stateless,” stripping him of his civil and human rights and placing him under government control without his knowledge or consent. A central and particularly egregious aspect of the case involves “Chemical-Submission and Mind-Control” of Smedema by his own wife, who he claims was “submissive to rapists who drugged and tortured her into severe dissociation (DIS).” This led Smedema to state, “So ‘De Facto’ I married my enemy.” The affair is characterized as a case of “State Capture,” where the Dutch state is allegedly controlled and manipulated by a corrupt system, highlighted in recent posts such as “FAQ: The Hans Smedema Affair: State Capture and Justice Denied”.1

The alleged impact on Smedema’s life is profound and multifaceted. He describes a deep sense of betrayal by his family, particularly his brother Johan Smedema, whom he claims colluded in covering up crimes. This betrayal extends to the Dutch government and the Royal family. Smedema claims significant financial damage, including loss of income, legal fees, and expenses from forced exile in Spain, alleging interference from government agents who sabotaged his work attempts. He also notably refused a 5 million euro buyout for his silence.1 The physical and psychological trauma is extensive, recounting five alleged assassination attempts, being drugged with antipsychotic medication, subjected to forced “brainwashing” sessions, and constant gaslighting to discredit him. He also claims his medical records contain evidence of unconsented sterilization and later secret re-fertility.1 His freedom has been severely curtailed, with denial of legal representation, unfair trials, and thwarted attempts to file charges, leading him to flee the Netherlands and seek asylum in Spain.1

 

The International Legal Framework for Reparations

 

International human rights law provides a robust framework for addressing such grave violations. The UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) unequivocally establishes an “enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible” for victims of torture.2 This right is fundamentally rooted in the inherent dignity of the human person.2 States are explicitly obligated to prevent acts of torture, criminalize them, and ensure effective mechanisms for victims to complain and receive redress.2

Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly Article 3, imposes an absolute prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, which is not subject to any express limitation.6 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) reviews state actions under the ECHR and may award damages for proven violations.9 The principle of State Responsibility under international law dictates that any state responsible for violations of international law is required to make “full reparation for the loss or injury caused”.10

The principle of “full reparation” is a cornerstone of international law, aiming to “erase all consequences of an illegal act or acts” and restore the victim to the situation they would have been in had the wrongful act not occurred.10 Under Article 14 of UNCAT, this comprehensive concept of reparation encompasses five distinct yet complementary forms: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition.3 These forms should be tailored to the victim’s specific needs and circumstances.4

The alleged “State-Capture” in the Smedema affair is not merely a contextual factor but an integral element of the human rights violations, creating a systemic environment where torture and other abuses could allegedly occur and persist for decades with impunity. State capture is defined as the undue influence by powerful individuals or corporations in shaping state policies for private gain, often at the expense of public interest and enabling human rights violations.17 It has been explicitly noted that “human rights violations in turn facilitate and perpetuate corruption, especially high-level corruption and state capture”.19 This establishes a direct, reciprocal relationship. The pervasive, long-term impact of a corrupted state apparatus on Smedema’s life and rights suggests that the damage assessment must go beyond isolated incidents. It must account for the compounding effect of systemic denial of justice, lack of effective remedies, and the psychological burden of fighting a seemingly omnipotent state. This pervasive influence could significantly impact the determination of the severity of non-pecuniary damages and potentially strengthen arguments for aggravated or punitive damages, as the state’s actions are alleged to be not merely wrongful, but part of a deliberate, long-term subversion of justice.

Furthermore, the legal definition of “torture” is not static; it evolves with societal progress. The ECtHR’s interpretation of the Convention as a “living instrument” requires the minimum standard of severity for ill-treatment to be assessed “in harmony with societal progress”.7 This means that acts classified as “inhuman or even degrading treatment” in the past might now be recognized as “torture”.7 Given the alleged 50-year duration of the abuses in Smedema’s case, this temporal evolution is highly relevant. A successful argument for reclassification of past abuses as torture would likely lead to significantly elevated non-pecuniary damages, as awards for torture are “considerably elevated” compared to other forms of ill-treatment.9 This underscores the need for legal experts to apply the most current and progressive human rights standards to historical events, ensuring the full extent of the harm is recognized and compensated.

 

Key Professionals in Damage Assessment

 

Estimating damages for a case as complex and prolonged as the Hans Smedema Affair requires a multidisciplinary team of experts. Each professional brings specialized knowledge critical to comprehensively assessing the various forms of harm suffered.

 

Legal Experts (Human Rights Lawyers, International Law Specialists)

 

Legal experts are indispensable for framing the case within the appropriate international and domestic legal frameworks.2 They articulate the specific human rights violations, such as torture and the denial of justice, and meticulously link them to state responsibility. These professionals interpret the applicability of international standards prohibiting gross human rights abuses and advise on what constitutes effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions.20 They are crucial for navigating the complexities of state responsibility, including the nuances of “aggravated state responsibility” for severe breaches of peremptory norms 21, and ensuring the claim aligns with the principle of “full reparation”.10 Legal experts also collaborate closely with other specialists, providing the legal strategy and direction to the findings of forensic accountants and economists.22

 

Forensic Accountants and Economists

 

The roles of forensic accountants and forensic economists are distinct yet critically complementary in cases involving systemic abuse.

Forensic Accountants are specialists operating at the intersection of finance and the legal system, providing findings that can withstand judicial scrutiny.23 Their work involves thorough examination and analysis of financial records to uncover evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or financial malpractices.22 In the Smedema affair, they would investigate economic damages arising from alleged tort or breach of contracts, trace funds, identify assets, and assist in recovering losses.22 This would be particularly relevant for Smedema’s claims of “financial ruin,” “loss of income,” and “sabotaging his work attempts”.1 Forensic accountants typically hold certifications like Certified Public Accountant (CPA) or Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE).23 In a case alleging “State-Capture” and significant financial manipulation, such as the sabotage of work attempts or the refusal of a 5 million euro buyout 1, the forensic accountant would focus on uncovering the financial mechanisms of the alleged state capture and direct financial losses. This could involve proving the deliberate nature of business opportunity sabotage or quantifying the financial impact of the refused buyout, and potentially tracing illicit gains by perpetrators.

Forensic Economists apply standard methods of economic analysis to estimate damages in litigation, especially for lost earning capacity.24 They are essential for calculating past and future lost earnings and benefits, considering historical earnings, education, and industry benchmarks.24 They also account for inflation and apply appropriate discount rates to future losses to determine their present value.25 The economist would quantify the lost earning capacity and future financial needs due to the long-term impact of the abuses. This dual approach strengthens the overall claim by demonstrating both the cause (state capture’s alleged financial manipulation and obstruction) and the effect (Smedema’s economic devastation and lost opportunities).

 

Medical and Psychological Experts (Trauma Specialists, Psychiatrists, Psychologists)

 

These experts are vital for assessing and quantifying non-pecuniary damages, particularly for prolonged physical and psychological trauma.25 They provide clinical diagnoses of conditions like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, insomnia, and other psychological impacts stemming from trauma.16 Smedema’s specific claims of “chemical submission & mind control,” “forced brainwashing,” and constant gaslighting 1 highlight the need for specialized trauma expertise.

Psychologists use evidence-based tools to understand the vulnerability and strengths of victims, helping them engage with legal processes without re-traumatization.37 They can provide expert testimony on the physical and psychological impact of injuries, functional limitations, and the emotional consequences of losses.40 Beyond general emotional distress, Smedema’s narrative strongly suggests the presence of “moral injury,” a distinct psychological harm that occurs when individuals perpetrate, fail to prevent, or witness events that contradict deeply held moral beliefs and expectations, or experience betrayal from leadership or those in power.38 This is highly relevant given Smedema’s claims of a “Royal conspiracy” and betrayal by his wife and government.1 The alleged betrayal by his wife, the government, and even the Royal family, coupled with the systemic nature of the “State-Capture,” would inherently contradict deeply held beliefs about justice, trust, and societal order. This specific form of psychological harm, distinct from PTSD or depression, should be explicitly assessed by psychological experts, as it addresses a deeper, more existential form of suffering. Quantifying moral injury as a component of non-pecuniary damages could significantly enhance the claim, as it recognizes a profound and unique psychological toll of state-perpetrated or state-sanctioned abuses, where the very institutions meant to protect betray their citizens. It highlights the unique psychological impact of prolonged, systemic betrayal and the fight against a seemingly captured state.

 

Life Care Planners

 

Life care planners specialize in creating detailed reports, known as “life care plans,” which calculate the medical and financial support a personal injury victim will require over their lifetime.34 This is particularly critical for individuals with permanent injuries or chronic conditions resulting from severe trauma. Their plans encompass estimated costs for recurring medical expenses, long-term custodial care, medication, psychological care, specialized medical equipment, home modifications for accessibility, and transportation costs.44 They collaborate with medical experts to project future needs based on injury severity, expected recovery trajectory, and potential long-term complications, meticulously accounting for inflation and the victim’s life expectancy.34

Given the alleged 50-year duration of torture and the profound physical and psychological trauma described by Smedema 1, a life care plan is not just advisable but absolutely essential. This long-term perspective is critical for accurately projecting future medical, psychological, and rehabilitative needs, which will realistically span many more decades of Smedema’s life. The chronic and enduring nature of the alleged torture means that Smedema’s health needs are ongoing and likely permanent. A life care plan directly links these long-term health consequences to the alleged abuse, providing a robust, detailed, and forward-looking financial projection for compensation. Without it, future costs for care and rehabilitation would be speculative and likely significantly underestimated, leading to inadequate compensation that falls short of the “full reparation” principle.

 

Table 1: Key Professionals and Their Roles in Damage Assessment

 

Professional Role	Primary Responsibilities in Damage Assessment	Specific Relevance to Hans Smedema Affair
Human Rights Lawyer	Legal strategy, framing violations within international/domestic law, advising on sanctions and state responsibility.	Framing state capture as a human rights violation, navigating international legal avenues, arguing for aggravated state responsibility.
Forensic Accountant	Financial investigation, uncovering fraud/malpractice, tracing funds, identifying assets, quantifying direct financial losses.	Quantifying lost buyout, proving and valuing sabotaged income, investigating financial mechanisms of state capture.
Forensic Economist	Economic valuation, calculating lost earning capacity, projecting future financial losses, applying discount rates and inflation.	Projecting 50+ years of lost earning capacity, accounting for suppressed economic potential due to state interference.
Medical/Psychological Expert	Trauma assessment, clinical diagnosis of psychological conditions, expert testimony on physical/mental impact.	Diagnosing PTSD, depression, anxiety, and specifically “moral injury” from prolonged torture and betrayal, assessing long-term psychological effects.
Life Care Planner	Long-term care planning, projecting future medical and rehabilitation needs, estimating costs for lifelong care.	Estimating lifelong rehabilitation costs for chronic physical and psychological trauma, including potential home modifications and specialized care.

 

Categories of Damages and Calculation Methodologies

 

Damages in human rights cases are broadly categorized into pecuniary (economic) and non-pecuniary (non-economic) losses, with additional considerations for aggravated and punitive damages in cases of severe, systemic violations.

 

Pecuniary (Economic) Damages

 

These are quantifiable financial losses directly resulting from the alleged violations.

 

Lost Earnings and Earning Capacity (Past and Future)

 

This category includes the loss of salary, wages, bonuses, commissions, and other employment-related benefits.25 Smedema specifically claims “loss of income” and “sabotage of his work attempts”.1 Forensic economists are crucial for determining “lost earning capacity,” which focuses on what the plaintiff

could have earned, rather than merely what they were earning at a specific point in time.24 This distinction is vital for a 50-year claim, especially if past earnings were suppressed by the alleged abuse or if Smedema was prevented from pursuing higher earning paths.24 Historical earnings, such as the last 3-5 years prior to the incident, serve as a starting guide, but these must be adjusted for inflation and projected future growth.25 For individuals with limited or no past earnings history, for example, if the alleged state capture prevented a career from developing, economists may use average earnings of similar individuals based on occupation, industry, or education level to estimate potential income.26

For a 50-year period of alleged “torture and State-Capture,” focusing on “lost earning capacity” rather than mere “lost earnings” is paramount. The alleged state-sponsored obstruction and sabotage 1 likely prevented Smedema from realizing his full earning potential. Using work-life expectancy tables, which include deductions for factors like unemployment or labor-force participation, would artificially reduce his compensation and fail to capture the full extent of the state’s alleged interference with his economic potential over five decades. This approach allows for a more robust and equitable claim, arguing that the state’s actions did not just cause a temporary loss of income but fundamentally impaired Smedema’s

lifetime ability to earn, irrespective of what his actual earnings might have been at any given point during the alleged capture. It shifts the focus from what he did earn under duress to what he could have earned in a fair, uncorrupted environment, thereby holding the state accountable for the full scope of its alleged economic sabotage.

A critical consideration in calculating lost earnings is to avoid perpetuating past discriminatory patterns. While Smedema’s specific case does not explicitly mention race or gender discrimination, the concept of “State-Capture” implies systemic abuse of power and potential for arbitrary or discriminatory targeting.1 If Smedema’s past earnings or earning potential were suppressed due to the alleged “State-Capture” or any discriminatory practices inherent in such a system (e.g., being blacklisted, denied opportunities, or forced into exile), simply using his historical data without adjustment could inadvertently perpetuate the harm.27 The calculation should aim to determine what he

would have earned in a fair, uncorrupted environment, not what he did earn under duress or systemic suppression. This implies that forensic economists must be sensitive to the context of the alleged harm. If the “State-Capture” systematically disadvantaged Smedema, the economic valuation must account for this systemic suppression of his economic potential, potentially by benchmarking against individuals not subjected to such capture. This moves beyond standard economic projections to incorporate the unique impact of state-sponsored systemic abuse on an individual’s career trajectory and earning capacity.

 

Past and Future Medical and Rehabilitation Costs

 

This includes a wide array of expenses such as hospital stays, doctor appointments, diagnostic testing, surgeries, physical therapy, medication, mental health counseling, long-term care, in-home care, modifications to home/car, and transportation.34 Smedema’s claims of being “drugged with antipsychotic medication,” subjected to “forced brainwashing,” and medical records indicating unconsented sterilization 1 would all incur significant past and future medical and psychological costs. As discussed, life care plans are essential for projecting these long-term needs, especially for conditions expected to persist for decades.34 Medical professionals and life care planners assess injury severity, expected recovery, and ongoing treatment requirements to create these comprehensive plans.35

Future medical costs are typically calculated as a single lump sum, which is then reduced to its “present value” to account for the potential for investment and interest accrual.33 This prevents overcompensating the plaintiff.29 The “discount rate” applied reflects both the time value of money and the inherent risk of the future cash flow.29 It must be consistent with the type of cash flow (e.g., pre-tax or after-tax).29 Inflation must be meticulously factored in to ensure the calculated amount accurately reflects the future cost of medical care, as healthcare costs tend to rise over time.28 The discount rate itself often incorporates an inflation component.30 Jurisdictions, like the UK, have specific Personal Injury Discount Rates (PIDR) set by authorities (e.g., the Lord Chancellor) which have varied significantly over time (e.g., from +2.5% to -0.75% to -0.25% to +0.5%).46 A lower PIDR results in a higher initial lump sum award, and vice versa.47

The calculation of future medical and rehabilitation costs for 50+ years of chronic trauma is highly sensitive to the chosen discount rate and inflation adjustments. Small differences in these rates can lead to “dramatically different damage calculations” 30 and, as seen in UK examples, “a reduction of over £5 million” in total compensation.46 The challenge is to select a discount rate that accurately reflects the time value of money and the

specific risks associated with long-term medical care in a context of state-sponsored abuse, where access to care might have been compromised or subject to further interference. This highlights a significant potential area of contention in legal proceedings. The defense (representing the state) might argue for a higher discount rate to reduce the lump sum, while the plaintiff would advocate for a lower rate to ensure full future coverage, arguing that the “risk factor” in the discount rate 30 should be higher for a victim of state-sponsored harm given potential ongoing risks to their health and access to services. This also implies the need for legal and economic experts to present robust justifications for their chosen rates and for legal bodies to ensure fair compensation over such extended periods, potentially through mechanisms like periodical payments.46

 

Other Direct Financial Losses

 

This category includes specific out-of-pocket expenses directly incurred due to the alleged violations, such as legal fees, costs associated with forced exile 1, and potentially the monetary value of any rejected buyouts for silence.1 Restitution, as a form of reparation, may also include the “return of property” or other measures to re-establish the victim’s situation before the violation was committed.4

 

Non-Pecuniary (Non-Economic) Damages

 

These are intangible losses, harder to quantify but equally real and often profoundly impactful.

 

Pain and Suffering, Emotional Distress, Mental Anguish

 

These encompass physical pain and discomfort, as well as psychological impacts such as anxiety, depression, fear, insomnia, and PTSD.31 Smedema’s claims of “horrible suffering,” “physical and psychological trauma,” “forced brainwashing,” and constant gaslighting 1 directly fall under this category. Non-economic damages are inherently subjective and “generally more difficult to quantify” because there is “no precise receipt for pain and suffering”.31 Legal frameworks typically require that awards, while not needing precise measurement, must be estimable and “not based on guesswork”.31

Common methodologies for estimating these damages include the Multiplier Method, which involves multiplying total economic damages by a factor (typically 1.5 to 5) based on injury severity, length of recovery, and long-term impact.32 For a 50-year period of alleged torture, the severity and duration would argue for a high multiplier. Another approach is the

Per Diem Method, which assigns a daily monetary value to the victim’s suffering, multiplied by the number of days of expected suffering.32 This method could be particularly relevant and impactful for quantifying “50+ years of torture.” The critical role of psychological evaluations and expert testimony is paramount, as medical and mental health professionals provide clinical diagnoses and educated opinions on the physical and psychological impact of the injuries.32 They assess the nature and extent of the injury, how it arose, and its future effects, considering alternative hypotheses and pre-existing conditions.41

In the context of the ECtHR, factors such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects, and the victim’s sex, age, and state of health are considered.8 However, empirical analysis suggests that the ECtHR’s awards for non-pecuniary loss are often modest and have “wholly neglected” the victim’s vulnerability, individual circumstances, and the specific consequences they suffered.9 The amount of compensation often depends more on the respondent state (richer countries tend to pay more in absolute terms for the same behavior) and the type and frequency of state conduct.9 Paradoxically, systemic violations might lead to lower awards in some cases, as the Court may reduce compensation to encourage state compliance or manage its large caseload.9

For Smedema, seeking damages for “50+ years of torture and State-Capture” against the Dutch government (a “rich country”), this presents a complex dynamic. While the duration and severity of his alleged suffering would argue for exceptionally high compensation, the ECtHR’s tendency to standardize awards and consider the state’s capacity for compliance might lead to a lower award than his individual suffering truly warrants. This implies a potential tension between the ideal of “full reparation” and the practicalities and institutional pressures faced by international courts. Smedema’s legal strategy might need to emphasize the unique and extreme nature of his individual suffering over 50 years, rather than relying solely on precedents from ECtHR cases, which might be influenced by state-centric considerations. It underscores the importance of robust, individualized expert testimony on his specific trauma and its profound impact, to counter any tendency towards standardized or reduced awards. The legal team must anticipate and proactively address this potential “price reduction” argument from the state, arguing that such a long-term, systemic abuse demands an award that truly reflects the individual’s devastation.

 

Loss of Enjoyment of Life (Hedonic Damages)

 

This compensates for the curtailment of lifestyle, activities, and overall happiness due to injuries, including the inability to engage in hobbies, sports, travel, or even simple daily pleasures.25 Smedema’s alleged forced exile and severe physical/psychological trauma 1 would significantly impact his ability to enjoy life. Proving this element requires painting a clear “before and after” picture of the plaintiff’s life.40 This includes the victim’s personal testimony detailing lost activities and emotional impact, “before and after” witnesses (family, friends, coworkers) who can attest to changes in lifestyle and demeanor, and medical records/expert testimony to substantiate the physical and psychological reasons for functional limitations.40 The legal treatment of this category varies; some jurisdictions recognize it as a separate element of damages, while others integrate it into pain and suffering awards.51

 

Injury to Reputation

 

Reputation is built over a long period but can be destroyed in an instant.52 Smedema explicitly claims “constant gaslighting to discredit him” and facing “widespread disbelief from family, friends, and professionals” 1, indicating a deliberate and sustained attack on his credibility. Assessing reputational harm involves a multifaceted evaluation, including reviewing traditional and social media coverage, analyzing articles, and determining how far harmful material has spread.52 The goal is to determine the necessary steps and associated costs to restore reputation to its pre-incident state.52 The “constant gaslighting to discredit him” over 50 years 1 implies a systematic and long-term erosion of Smedema’s reputation, not just a single incident. Valuing this harm requires assessing not only the direct impact on his professional and personal standing but also the sustained psychological toll of being disbelieved, marginalized, and potentially ostracized. This is far more complex than a typical defamation case involving a single event. The damage assessment for reputational harm must consider the

cumulative effect of 50 years of alleged discrediting. It might involve expert analysis of public perception, media narratives, and the specific impact on Smedema’s social and professional life, potentially even including the cost of long-term reputation management or public relations efforts to undo decades of alleged state-sponsored gaslighting. This goes beyond typical reputational harm to address the unique challenges and profound impact on a victim of state capture, where the state itself is actively involved in discrediting the individual.

 

Moral Injury

 

As previously discussed, moral injury is a distinct psychological harm arising from events that contradict deeply held moral beliefs, especially in contexts of betrayal by authority figures or institutions.38 Smedema’s claims of a “Royal conspiracy,” betrayal by his wife (whom he states he “married my enemy”), and the systemic nature of the alleged state-sponsored abuse 1 are highly relevant to this category.

 

Aggravated and Punitive Damages

 

The concept and applicability of enhanced damages are crucial in cases of severe human rights violations.

Compensatory damages aim to restore the plaintiff, as far as money can, to the position they would have been in had the defendant’s wrongful act not occurred.53

Punitive damages are awarded to punish the defendant for “aggravated misconduct” and to deter that defendant and others from similar future misconduct.53 In some domestic legal systems (e.g., US common law), they serve as an effective remedy for consumer protection against egregious behavior.54

Aggravated damages are distinct from punitive damages; they compensate for additional mental distress caused by the egregious “manner” of the wrongful act, often involving bad faith, unfair treatment, or humiliation.56

In human rights violations, particularly against states, the applicability of punitive damages varies. In US law, punitive damages can be awarded for intentional discrimination with “malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights”.57 International law generally focuses on “full reparation,” which includes restitution, compensation, and satisfaction.4 While common law systems (e.g., US, UK, Australia, Canada) allow for punitive damages, civil law systems often limit recovery to compensatory amounts, viewing punitive sanctions as the “penal monopoly of the State”.55 However, international law

does recognize “aggravated state responsibility” for “serious breaches of peremptory norms” (jus cogens), such as torture.21 While specific consequences beyond restitution, compensation, and satisfaction are not always outlined, the concept acknowledges the heightened gravity of such violations.21

The alleged “State-Capture” in the Hans Smedema affair elevates the severity of the human rights violations beyond individual acts to a systemic, institutionalized level. This context strongly supports an argument for aggravated damages, which account for the egregious nature of the state’s conduct and its alleged bad faith.56 While explicitly “punitive damages” against states in international law are less universally settled 12, the concept of “aggravated state responsibility” 21 provides a strong legal basis for seeking a higher level of compensation that reflects the heightened gravity of state-sanctioned, long-term torture and systemic denial of justice. This implies that the legal strategy should not only seek compensation for direct harms but also emphasize the

systemic nature of the abuse as a factor warranting an enhanced award. The argument would be that the state’s deliberate and prolonged use of its power to inflict harm and deny justice (as implied by “State-Capture”) constitutes “aggravated misconduct” deserving of a more significant financial remedy. This also serves a crucial deterrent purpose, as highlighted by the UNCAT 4, signaling that such systemic violations will incur a higher cost.

 

Table 2: Categories of Damages and Illustrative Examples for Prolonged Abuse

 

Category of Damage	Description and Relevance	Illustrative Examples (Hans Smedema Affair)
Pecuniary (Economic) Damages	Quantifiable financial losses.
Lost Earnings & Earning Capacity	Loss of income, wages, benefits, and the ability to earn over a lifetime.	Calculation of income lost from 1972 onwards due to alleged “sabotaging work attempts” and forced exile, including potential career progression and benefits.1
Medical & Rehabilitation Costs	Expenses for past and future medical treatment, psychological care, and rehabilitation.	Costs for long-term psychological therapy, medication for alleged drugging, specialized care for trauma-induced conditions, and potential future medical interventions related to alleged sterilization.1
Other Direct Financial Losses	Specific out-of-pocket expenses incurred due to the violations.	Legal fees incurred over decades, expenses related to forced exile in Spain, and the monetary value of the alleged 5 million euro buyout for silence that was refused.1
Non-Pecuniary (Non-Economic) Damages	Intangible losses, subjective but profoundly impactful.
Pain and Suffering, Emotional Distress, Mental Anguish	Physical pain, psychological trauma, anxiety, depression, PTSD, and the overall emotional toll.	Compensation for 50+ years of “horrible suffering,” “physical and psychological trauma,” “forced brainwashing,” and constant gaslighting.1
Loss of Enjoyment of Life	Curtailment of lifestyle, hobbies, social activities, and overall happiness.	Loss of ability to engage in normal life activities, travel, and social interactions due to forced exile, chronic trauma, and the pervasive impact of state capture.1
Injury to Reputation	Damage to personal and professional standing, credibility, and public image.	Valuation of harm from “constant gaslighting to discredit him” and “widespread disbelief from family, friends, and professionals,” including costs for long-term reputation repair.1
Moral Injury	Psychological harm from events contradicting deeply held moral beliefs, especially betrayal by authority.	Compensation for the profound psychological impact of alleged “Royal conspiracy,” betrayal by his wife (whom he states he “married my enemy”), and systemic state-sponsored abuse.1
Aggravated and Punitive Damages	Enhanced compensation for egregious conduct and deterrence.
Aggravated Damages	Additional compensation for the egregious manner of the state’s conduct, bad faith, and humiliation.	Enhanced award reflecting the systemic, deliberate, and prolonged nature of the alleged torture and state capture, and the state’s alleged subversion of justice over decades.21
Punitive Damages	Award to punish the state for aggravated misconduct and deter future violations.	While less common against states in international law, an argument can be made for a significant award to deter future systemic human rights violations stemming from state capture, given the extreme duration and severity of the alleged abuses.21

 

Conclusions

 

The task of presenting estimates for damages in the Hans Smedema Affair, encompassing “50+ years of torture and State-Capture,” necessitates a highly specialized and interdisciplinary approach. The alleged systemic nature of the “State-Capture” is not merely a contextual detail but a fundamental aspect that elevates the gravity and complexity of the human rights violations. This pervasive influence, allegedly orchestrated by high-ranking officials and potentially the Royal family, suggests a deliberate and sustained subversion of justice that profoundly impacted Smedema’s life across all dimensions.

The principle of “full reparation” under international law mandates a comprehensive remedy that includes restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. Achieving this requires the collaborative expertise of human rights lawyers, forensic accountants, forensic economists, medical and psychological trauma specialists, and life care planners. Each professional plays a critical role in quantifying the diverse forms of harm, from the tangible economic losses to the profound and often immeasurable non-pecuniary suffering.

The long duration of the alleged abuse, spanning five decades, introduces unique challenges in damage calculation. The assessment of lost earning capacity must consider Smedema’s potential career trajectory had the alleged state interference not occurred, moving beyond mere historical earnings to account for suppressed economic potential. Similarly, future medical and rehabilitation costs, projected over potentially many more decades, require meticulous financial modeling, with careful consideration of discount rates and inflation to ensure adequate long-term compensation.

Furthermore, the non-pecuniary damages, particularly pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and injury to reputation, are significantly compounded by the prolonged and systemic nature of the alleged abuse. The “constant gaslighting” and “widespread disbelief” described by Smedema suggest a deliberate campaign to undermine his credibility, requiring a valuation that accounts for decades of reputational erosion and its psychological toll. Critically, the concept of “moral injury,” stemming from the alleged betrayal by state institutions and close relations, represents a distinct and profound psychological harm that warrants explicit recognition and compensation.

While international courts like the ECtHR may adopt state-centric approaches to non-pecuniary awards, potentially standardizing or reducing compensation in systemic violation cases, a robust legal strategy for Smedema must emphasize the unique and extreme nature of his individual suffering. Arguments for aggravated damages, reflecting the egregious and systemic nature of the state’s alleged misconduct, are strongly supported by the context of “State-Capture.” Such an enhanced award would not only provide a more just remedy for the immense suffering endured but also serve a crucial deterrent function against future state-sponsored human rights violations.

Ultimately, presenting estimates for damages in this affair demands a meticulous, evidence-based, and forward-looking assessment that fully captures the multi-generational impact of systemic torture and state capture on an individual’s life and dignity.

Google Gemini Advanced Deep Research

 

Works cited

1. Hans Smedema Affair – Victim of the largest horrifying kafkaesque …, accessed August 5, 2025, https://hanssmedema.info
2. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment | OHCHR, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading
3. General comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14 by States parties, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/cat/2012/en/101850
4. Committee against Torture, General Comment No. 3 – University of Minnesota Human Rights Library, accessed August 5, 2025, https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/cat/general_comments/cat_gen_com3.html
5. Torture survivors have the right to redress and rehabilitation – Commissioner for Human Rights – The Council of Europe, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/torture-survivors-have-the-right-to-redress-and-rehabilitation
6. Case-law – CURIA – Documents – European Union, accessed August 5, 2025, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=195901&doclang=EN
7. IDENTIFYING THE THRESHOLD OF DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT UNDER ARTICLE 3 ECHR, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r30903.pdf
8. Guide on Article 3 of the Convention – Prohibition of torture – ECHR-KS, accessed August 5, 2025, https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_3_eng
9. Damages for pain and suffering before the European Court of …, accessed August 5, 2025, https://ehrac.org.uk/en_gb/blog/damages-for-pain-and-suffering-before-the-european-court-of-human-rights/
10. Customary IHL – Rule 150. Reparation, accessed August 5, 2025, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule150
11. State Responsibility – Oxford Public International Law, accessed August 5, 2025, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1093
12. Annex I: Compensation for the damage caused by internationally wrongful acts — Report of the International Law Commission – OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS |, accessed August 5, 2025, https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2024/english/annex1.pdf
13. Compensation – Oxford Public International Law, accessed August 5, 2025, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1025
14. ASSESSMENT AND QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGES IN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW: AN OVERVIEW – Czasopisma UKSW, accessed August 5, 2025, https://czasopisma.uksw.edu.pl/index.php/priel/article/download/10916/10498/22797
15. Reparations | OHCHR, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.ohchr.org/en/transitional-justice/reparations
16. COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE – Redress.org, accessed August 5, 2025, https://redress.org/storage/2024/11/Practice-Note-12_Compensation_EN-v.7.pdf
17. State Capture: How to Recognize and React to it | International IDEA, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/html/state-capture-how-recognize-and-react-it
18. State Capture Matters: A research article and associated dataset and index, accessed August 5, 2025, https://r4d.org/resources/state-capture-index/
19. Basic guide to corruption and human rights, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.u4.no/topics/human-rights/basics
20. Corporate liability for gross human rights abuses – ohchr, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Business/DomesticLawRemedies/StudyDomesticeLawRemedies.pdf
21. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Expansion of Jus Cogens and the Missing Piece of the Puzzle: Aggravated State Responsibility – NUS Centre for International Law, accessed August 5, 2025, https://cil.nus.edu.sg/blogs/the-inter-american-court-of-human-rights-expansion-of-jus-cogens-and-the-missing-piece-of-the-puzzle-aggravated-state-responsibility/
22. Investigation Techniques, Methods, Types, and Increasing Impact of Forensic Accounting in Digital Period – DergiPark, accessed August 5, 2025, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2295740
23. Forensic accounting | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/science/forensic-accounting
24. Forensic economics and the calculation of personal-injury damages – Plaintiff Magazine, accessed August 5, 2025, https://plaintiffmagazine.com/recent-issues/item/forensic-economics-and-the-calculation-of-personal-injury-damages
25. Section 2: Calculation of Loss (Compensation) | VCF, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.vcf.gov/policy/calculation-loss
26. Calculating economic damages in personal injury cases, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.damageguide.com/writings/calculating-economic-damages-in-personal-injury-cases
27. How Economists’ Use of Race-Specific and Gender-Specific Data In Estimating Loss May Perpet – American Economic Association, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2020/preliminary/paper/5Ks6t84i
28. “Using TIPS to Discount to Present Value” by Raymond Strangways …, accessed August 5, 2025, https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/finance_facpubs/9/
29. Discounting and discount rates in economic loss | Grant Thornton Australia, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.grantthornton.com.au/insights/blogs/discounting-and-discount-rates-in-economic-loss/
30. Discounting Damages | Meaden & Moore, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.meadenmoore.com/blog/iag/discounting-damages
31. Noneconomic Damages in Maryland – Personal Injury and Wrongful Death, accessed August 5, 2025, https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/meeting_material/2025/jud%20-%20133814321162478626%20-%20Dept.%20Legislative%20Services%20-%20Noneconomic%20Damages%20Report%201-14-2025.pdf
32. Non-Economic Damages in Personal Injury Lawsuits – Justia, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/non-economic-damages/
33. Economic Damages in Personal Injury Lawsuits – Justia, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/economic-damages/
34. How Are Future Medical Expenses Calculated in an Injury Case?, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.rrbslawnj.com/future-medical-expenses-calculated/
35. Future Medical Expenses: How They Are Calculated in Personal Injury Settlements, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.bcmlawyers.com/personal-injury-settlements/
36. Personal Injury Claim: Calculating Future Medical Expenses | Malman Law, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.malmanlaw.com/malman-law-injury-blog/calculating-future-medical-expenses/
37. The Trauma Expert – | International Criminal Court, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.icc-cpi.int/get-involved/justice-at-work/story/the-trauma-expert
38. Moral Injury – PTSD: National Center for PTSD, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treat/cooccurring/moral_injury.asp
39. Defining and Assessing the Syndrome of Moral Injury: Initial Findings of the Moral Injury Outcome Scale Consortium – PubMed Central, accessed August 5, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9297368/
40. How to Prove Loss of Enjoyment of Life – Bourne Law Firm, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.bourne.law/personal-injury/articles/loss-of-enjoyment/
41. Evaluation Decisions by Psychologists about Causation and Damages in Personal Injury and Employment Discrimination Cases (Chapter 35) – The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-psychology-and-legal-decisionmaking/evaluation-decisions-by-psychologists-about-causation-and-damages-in-personal-injury-and-employment-discrimination-cases/94102FE550996E9819D8C6EDDBDE18EB
42. Civil Forensic Evaluation in Psychological Injury and Law: Legal, Professional, and Ethical Considerations – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed August 5, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7683260/
43. Moral trauma, moral distress, moral injury, and moral injury disorder: definitions and assessments – PMC, accessed August 5, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11919856/
44. What is a Life Care Plan in a Washington Personal Injury Case? – Hagens Berman, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.hbsslaw.com/personal-injury/seattle/compensatory-damages/life-care-plans
45. Forensic Economics, UM-St. Louis, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.umsl.edu/~irelandt/ForensicEconomics/definitions.html
46. New personal injury discount rate comes into effect – Bindmans LLP, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.bindmans.com/news-insights/blogs/new-personal-injury-discount-rate-comes-into-effect/
47. Setting the Personal Injury Discount Rate: A call for evidence – GOV.UK, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/setting-the-personal-injury-discount-rate/setting-the-personal-injury-discount-rate-a-call-for-evidence
48. OBTAINING COMPENSATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS – Blackstone Chambers, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.blackstonechambers.com/documents/Obtaining_Compensation_for_Human_Rights_Violations
49. Non-pecuniary damages before the European Court of Human Rights: Forget the victim; it’s all about the state | Leiden Journal of International Law – Cambridge University Press, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/nonpecuniary-damages-before-the-european-court-of-human-rights-forget-the-victim-its-all-about-the-state/911053A46DF3EFAE79F76C67E4ED2877
50. Forsaking Individual Justice: The Implications of the European Court of Human Rights’ Pilot Judgment Procedure for Victims of Gross and Systematic Violations – Oxford Academic, accessed August 5, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/hrlr/article/16/4/731/2694930
51. Loss of Enjoyment of Life as an Element of Damages – Insight @ Dickinson Law, accessed August 5, 2025, https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2475&context=dlra
52. Measuring Reputational Harm.docx – Hart + Harvest Press, accessed August 5, 2025, https://hartandharvest.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Measuring-Reputational-Harm.pdf
53. Measurement of Restitution: Coordinating Restitution with Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages – Washington and Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons, accessed August 5, 2025, https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3318&context=wlulr
54. Punitive damages: Punishing and deterring oppression, fraud, and malice, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2015-february/punitive-damages-punishing-and-deterring-oppression-fraud-and-malice
55. Transnational Punitive and Compensatory Damages: Villains or Role Models? – STU Scholarly Works, accessed August 5, 2025, https://scholarship.stu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=stlr
56. Moral damages and human rights damages – Gowling WLG, accessed August 5, 2025, https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2017/moral-damages-and-human-rights-damages
57. Compensatory Damages, Punitive Damages and Remittitur under federal, NY State and NY City Law (Continued) – Employment Law Firm, accessed August 5, 2025, https://www.employmentlawfirmpc.com/compensatory-damages-punitive-damages-and-remittitur-under-feder_2.html