Last Updated 05/11/2025 published 05/11/2025 by Hans Smedema

Strategic Litigation Proposal NOvA: The Matter of Ing. Hans Smedema v. The Kingdom of the Netherlands

To: local Bar Association for The Hague – NOvA

 From: ing. Hans Smedema Date: Nov 4, 2025 Subject: Proposal for a Mandate to Initiate Multi-Jurisdictional Litigation Against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

This case has recently been accepted by the EU Parliament Petition under number 1808 – 2025 and an investigation has been initiated. The Dutch National Ombudsman has refused this case in 2005, 2008 after advice to do so by CTIVD and BIZA, and recently Aug 19, 2025. Absurd behavior. 

——————————————————————————–

1.0 Introduction: A Mandate for Justice in a Case of Systemic State Failure

This document serves as a formal proposal to the Litigation Committee, seeking a mandate to represent Ing. Hans Smedema in a multi-jurisdictional legal action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The matter of Ing. Hans Smedema presents not merely a case of individual grievance but a rare and critical opportunity to confront a multi-decade, systemic failure of the rule of law within a core EU Member State—a challenge that speaks directly to this firm’s mandate and reputation. This case, spanning over five decades, is not an attempt to retroactively adjudicate historical crimes. Instead, our proposed action is founded on a clear and present legal injury: the State’s continuous and systemic wrongful act (onrechtmatige daad) of obstructing justice. This ongoing refusal to investigate credible allegations of torture, to provide access to legal counsel, and to afford an effective remedy constitutes a profound violation of Dutch civil law, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), and the foundational values of the European Union.

What follows is a dispassionate summary of the factual matrix, which forms the bedrock of a compelling and strategically viable litigation plan designed to break a decades-long cycle of impunity.

2.0 Factual Matrix: A Narrative of Systemic Persecution and Obstruction

The purpose of this Factual Matrix is to distill a complex, emotionally charged, and multi-decade narrative into a dispassionate and verifiable timeline of alleged violations. This coherent presentation is not merely for clarity; it is strategically essential for establishing the legal foundation of our claims. By structuring these harrowing allegations into a logical sequence, we demonstrate a consistent pattern of state action and inaction that points directly to a systemic denial of justice and potential state capture, thereby substantiating the gravity and plausibility of the claims.

The Foundational Crimes and State-Sanctioned Cover-Up (c. 1972-2000)

The petitioner, Ing. Hans Smedema, alleges that beginning around 1972, he and his wife, Wies Smedema, were victims of severe criminal acts. These acts included being drugged, subjected to sexual abuse, and psychological manipulation. Mr. Smedema’s wife was allegedly rendered a “sex slave” with a “double personality,” making her a defenseless victim for decades. The petitioner alleges that these crimes were systematically concealed through a “doofpot affaire” (cover-up affair) initiated by a “Royal Special Decree” issued by Queen Juliana around 1972/75. This decree, allegedly issued at the request of family members and orchestrated by state officials such as Joris Demmink, explicitly forbade any investigation or prosecution of the perpetrators. This cover-up was allegedly led by the petitioner’s own brother, mr. Johan Smedema, in concert with a secret division within the Ministry of Justice, a claim substantiated by a whistleblower, Elise B., who worked in the brother’s office.

Systemic Obstruction and Denial of Effective Remedy (c. 2000-Present)

Upon the return of his memory through a series of “flashbacks” in March 2000, Mr. Smedema began a relentless quest for justice, which was met with an alleged wall of institutional obstruction. Key instances include:

• Refusal to Investigate: Police, including detective Haye Bruinsma in 2004, were allegedly ordered by the Ministry of Justice not to investigate and refused to create an official police report (Proces-Verbaal).
• Prosecutorial Interference: The forced transfer of prosecutor Ruud Rosingh occurred after he was ordered to stop his investigation into the rape of Mrs. Smedema in 1991 based on a letter from the petitioner’s brother, Johan Smedema, expressly forbidding it.
• Systematic Denial of Legal Representation: Mr. Smedema alleges that lawyers in the Netherlands are “not allowed to help” him, a claim he has documented over two decades, rendering him unable to access the domestic legal system effectively.
• International Obstruction: His 2005/2006 complaint to the European Court of Human Rights was rejected for “failure to exhaust domestic remedies.” The petitioner alleges this decision was based on “false fraudulent information” provided to the Court by the Dutch Ministry of Justice.

Alleged Acts of Torture and Institutional Gaslighting

The petitioner describes specific acts of torture designed to suppress his memory and discredit his account. These include allegations of “secretly forced criminal electroshock torture” administered by Prof. dr. Onno van der Hart and Jaap Duijs in Spain. Crucially, local police in Spain were allegedly prevented from intervening by higher authorities, reportedly at the request of the Dutch Ministry of Justice, extending the alleged obstruction beyond national borders. Furthermore, he alleges that since 2003, he was secretly administered a powerful antipsychotic medication (Risperdal) disguised as “baby aspirin.” This campaign of medical and psychological manipulation aligns with a strategy of “institutional gaslighting,” aimed at having the petitioner officially and wrongfully diagnosed as “delusional” to destroy his credibility and justify the State’s refusal to investigate his claims.

The Human and Financial Cost

The consequences for Mr. Smedema have been catastrophic. Now 77 years old, Mr. Smedema has spent over two decades of his life pursuing justice since his memory returned. He lost his career as a top-level Headhunter with a gross turnover of €145,000, was forced into exile in Spain to escape attempts to have him forcibly committed to a psychiatric institution, and has been wrongfully detained for a total of 29 months in the United States and the Netherlands. As a benchmark for the scale of damages, it is noted that following an FBI/CIA investigation during his 2009 asylum proceedings, US authorities valued his claim at approximately US$100 million.

These facts, drawn directly from the petitioner’s consistent testimony over two decades, provide the necessary basis for the legal analysis that follows.

3.0 Legal Foundations for Multi-Jurisdictional Claims

The strategic strength of this case lies in its multi-layered legal foundation. The factual matrix gives rise to discrete, actionable claims under three distinct but interconnected legal regimes: Dutch civil law, international human rights law, and the fundamental law of the European Union. The following analysis deconstructs the petitioner’s experience into these legal categories, establishing the robust basis for a multi-pronged litigation strategy that targets the State’s ongoing misconduct rather than the statute-barred historical crimes.

3.1 Dutch Civil Law: The Tort of Continuous Obstruction

• Primary Cause of Action: The central claim under Dutch civil law is for a continuous “wrongful act” (onrechtmatige daad) by the State, as defined in the Dutch Civil Code.
• The Ongoing Tort: Crucially, the tort is not the original crimes of the 1970s. The wrongful act is the State’s multi-decade, ongoing refusal to investigate credible allegations of torture and to provide an effective remedy. This refusal constitutes an independent and continuous breach of the State’s duty of care towards its citizens. Each day this refusal continues, a new breach occurs, thereby neutralizing any defense based on the statute of limitations for the underlying historical events.

3.2 International Human Rights Law: Egregious Violations of Core Conventions

The Netherlands, as a signatory to major international human rights treaties, is bound by their provisions. The State’s alleged conduct constitutes a clear violation of these binding obligations.

• UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT):
  • Article 12 (Duty to Investigate): The State is in flagrant, ongoing breach of its non-discretionary duty under Article 12 to initiate a “prompt and impartial investigation” wherever there is “reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed.” The petitioner’s detailed and repeated complaints regarding electroshock torture and forcible drugging have unequivocally triggered this duty. The State’s refusal to act is a direct and ongoing violation.
  • Article 14 (Right to Redress): This article guarantees victims of torture an enforceable right to redress, including fair and adequate compensation and rehabilitation. The State’s obstruction has completely nullified this right.
• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):
  • Article 3 (Prohibition of Torture): The allegations of drugging, electroshock torture, and a sustained campaign of psychological warfare fall squarely within the definition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3.
  • Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial): The right of access to a court is a cornerstone of Article 6. The alleged systemic denial of legal representation has fundamentally compromised this right, rendering the Dutch legal system inaccessible to the petitioner.
  • Article 13 (Right to an Effective Remedy): The State’s actions have rendered all domestic remedies illusory, constituting a clear violation of the right to an effective remedy under Article 13. The consistent refusal by police to file reports, by prosecutors to investigate, and by the National Ombudsman to intervene demonstrates that all theoretical remedies are ineffective in practice.

3.3 European Union Law: A Fundamental Breach of the Rule of Law

The alleged systemic failure of the Dutch justice system is not merely a domestic issue; it represents a grave threat to the legal order of the European Union.

• Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU): This article establishes that the Union is founded on the value of the “rule of law.” A state apparatus that actively obstructs justice and shields perpetrators of torture from accountability represents a fundamental breakdown of this core value.
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR): The State’s actions violate multiple provisions of the Charter, most critically Article 47 (Right to an effective remedy and a fair trial), which mirrors the protections of ECHR Articles 6 and 13.
• Erosion of Mutual Trust: The principle of mutual trust is the bedrock of the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ). A systemically compromised Ministry of Justice in a Member State erodes the confidence other Member States can place in the integrity of its legal system, jeopardizing cross-border judicial cooperation and undermining the entire EU project.

These specific legal violations, when viewed in the context of documented systemic failures within the Dutch state, form a credible and compelling basis for legal action.

4.0 Substantiating Plausibility: Precedent for Systemic State Failure in the Netherlands

The extraordinary nature of Mr. Smedema’s claims requires contextual substantiation. While each allegation must be proven on its own merits, establishing a credible pattern of institutional behavior makes the petitioner’s narrative of state capture and systemic indifference plausible to a court. By examining two high-profile, documented failures of the Dutch state, we can provide a macro-level explanation for the micro-level injustices experienced by our potential client.

4.1 Precedent for Malicious Capture: The Joris Demmink Affair

The documented Joris Demmink Affair provides a powerful precedent that substantiates the claim of institutional capture within the Ministry of Justice. Reports from whistleblowers and former officials detail how Mr. Demmink, as Secretary-General, amassed “decisive and compelling” influence over top appointments in the police and judiciary, creating a structure of patronage and loyalty. These same reports describe a “culture of fear” within the Ministry, where officials feared repercussions for speaking out.

This documented precedent provides a concrete and highly plausible explanation for key events in the Smedema case. The refusal of police officers like Haye Bruinsma to investigate, the explicit orders from the Ministry to halt inquiries, and the forced transfer of prosecutor Ruud Rosingh are not random acts of bureaucratic failure when viewed through this lens; they are the logical consequences of the institutional control and pervasive fear documented in the Demmink affair.

4.2 Precedent for Systemic Indifference: The Dutch Childcare Benefits Scandal (Toeslagenaffaire)

The Toeslagenaffaire serves as a devastating recent precedent for systemic state maladministration, institutional bias, and bureaucratic indifference to citizen suffering. The 2024 parliamentary inquiry, in its report titled “Blind voor mens en recht” (‘Blind to people and the law’), concluded that all three branches of the Dutch government—the cabinet, parliament, and judiciary—had violated fundamental rights and were “blind to their inhumane and unjust treatment of citizens.”

This scandal demonstrates how a state apparatus can, for years, prioritize its own procedures over justice and humanity, dismissing mounting evidence of harm. This context explains the passive, bureaucratic obstruction experienced by Mr. Smedema. The repeated, formulaic dismissals by the National Ombudsman and other bodies are entirely consistent with the patterns of systemic indifference and institutional self-preservation exposed by the Toeslagenaffaire. This precedent establishes a documented pattern of institutional behavior that mirrors the ‘institutional gaslighting’ experienced by Mr. Smedema, lending powerful credibility to his claims of being systematically dismissed and disbelieved.

5.0 Proposed Strategic Litigation Plan

Our proposed litigation strategy is a multi-pronged, multi-jurisdictional approach. It is designed to apply maximum legal and public pressure on the Dutch State, secure urgent provisional relief for our client, and systematically build a foundation for comprehensive redress. These actions are designed to be mutually reinforcing: the Kort Geding will establish a public judicial record and apply immediate pressure; the ECHR complaint will challenge the systemic denial of remedy at an international level; and the EU Commission complaint will frame the case as a threat to the EU’s foundational legal order, thereby preventing the State from isolating this as a purely domestic issue. The plan prioritizes actions that are swift, visible, and strategically targeted at the State’s ongoing violations.

1. Immediate Action: Kort Geding (Summary Proceedings) in Dutch Civil Court
   • Objective: To secure urgent provisional relief, such as a financial advance, and to break the cycle of institutional silence with a swift judicial intervention.
   • Rationale: A Kort Geding is the ideal first step given the client’s advanced age and urgent financial situation. Its primary benefits are speed and public visibility. A favorable provisional ruling would create a powerful “benchmark” for a full procedure and exert significant pressure on the State to engage in settlement negotiations.
   • Core Argument: The proceedings will be narrowly and strategically focused on a single, clear-cut legal question: the State’s ongoing breach of its non-discretionary duty under Article 12 of the UN Convention Against Torture to initiate a prompt and impartial investigation into credible allegations of torture.
2. International Action: A Renewed Complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
   • Objective: To seek a definitive international ruling that the Netherlands has violated its core obligations under the Convention.
   • Rationale: The 2005/2006 rejection was based on procedural grounds, allegedly due to fraudulent information from the State and the petitioner’s lack of legal counsel. A new, professionally drafted complaint can overcome these deficiencies and address the merits of the case.
   • Core Argument: We will argue that the “failure to exhaust domestic remedies” is not a procedural fault of the applicant. It is, in fact, the central violation of Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) and Article 13 (Right to an Effective Remedy), caused directly by the State’s active and systemic obstruction of justice.
3. EU-Level Engagement: Strategic Complaint to the European Commission
   • Objective: To trigger EU oversight mechanisms and frame the case as a systemic threat to the EU legal order, informing the annual Rule of Law Report.
   • Rationale: While the Commission is reluctant to intervene in what it deems national matters, a meticulously framed complaint can highlight the EU-wide implications of a compromised justice system in a Member State.
   • Core Argument: The complaint will focus on the violation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the erosion of the principle of mutual trust. We will argue that a compromised Dutch Ministry of Justice, unable or unwilling to investigate torture, poses a direct risk to the functioning of the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ).

6.0 Pre-Emptive Rebuttal of Key Defenses

Any high-stakes litigation against a sovereign state requires a proactive strategy to anticipate and neutralize its most potent defenses. Our approach is designed to dismantle the three legal hurdles the Kingdom of the Netherlands is most likely to raise.

1. Weaponizing the “Failure to Exhaust” Defense Against the State The State will almost certainly argue, as it did successfully before the ECHR in 2005, that Mr. Smedema has failed to exhaust all available domestic legal avenues. We will dismantle this defense by framing it as a “cruel paradox”—a Kafkaesque trap. Our core counter-argument is that the State cannot benefit from a procedural defense that is the direct result of its own wrongful act. The systematic blocking of legal representation, the refusal of police to file reports, and the interference with prosecutorial investigations are not procedural failures by the petitioner; they are the very proof that domestic remedies have been rendered unavailable and ineffective. The obstruction is the evidence.
2. Overcoming the Statute of Limitations For claims related to the historical crimes of the 1970s, the State will invoke the statute of limitations. We will overcome this defense on two grounds. First, our primary claim is not based on the historical crimes but on the continuous tort of refusing to investigate, a wrongful act that is ongoing to this day and is therefore not statute-barred. Second, we will cite the powerful Dutch legal precedent established in the “East Java torture cases,” where courts set aside the statute of limitations due to the “extraordinary seriousness of the crimes” and, critically, where the plaintiff was “de facto kept from access to justice for a long period of time.” Mr. Smedema’s case fits this precedent precisely.
3. Managing Factual Complexity The State may argue that the case is too factually complex to be adjudicated in summary proceedings (Kort Geding). We will mitigate this by strategically narrowing the scope of our initial action. The Kort Geding will not attempt to prove fifty years of conspiracy. It will focus on one clear, present, and legally indisputable question: Does the State have a non-discretionary duty under Article 12 of UNCAT to investigate the petitioner’s credible allegations of torture, and is it currently in breach of that duty? For the purpose of granting urgent provisional relief, we will argue that the immediate and ongoing harm to our client’s health and financial stability far outweighs the case’s underlying factual complexity.

By proactively dismantling these defenses, we clear the path for a successful initial action and strengthen our position for all subsequent proceedings.

7.0 Conclusion and Formal Request for Mandate

The case of Ing. Hans Smedema, while factually complex and spanning over fifty years, presents a legally sound and strategically viable opportunity to hold the Kingdom of the Netherlands accountable for a systemic and ongoing failure of the rule of law. The core of our proposed action is not a stale historical grievance, but a present and continuing wrongful act: the State’s active obstruction of justice in violation of its own laws and binding international commitments. The precedents of the Joris Demmink Affair and the Toeslagenaffaire provide a credible context for these extraordinary allegations, demonstrating that the Dutch state is not immune to malicious capture or systemic indifference. Our proposed multi-jurisdictional strategy, beginning with an urgent Kort Geding, is designed to cut through procedural blockades and secure tangible results for a client who has been denied justice for far too long.

The NOvA is uniquely positioned to dismantle the procedural fortress the Dutch State has built around this case. Therefore, I formally request the Committee grant this mandate and authorize the immediate initiation of a Kort Geding. It is time to substitute impunity with accountability.

 

Google NotebookLM Plus Report,

based on the legal-written-statements on this Legal-Blog by Victim-Author:

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