Smedema v. David van Weel: Alleged Rights Violations

Google NotebookLM Plus Insights

Minister David van Weel ‘Blind voor Mens en Recht’ in groteske Hans Smedema Affair

Minister David van Weel’s response, dated February 4, 2025, to Hans Smedema’s requests for legal assistance, allegedly constituted several violations of EU fundamental rights, as argued by Smedema. Smedema contends that Van Weel’s reply, far from addressing his desperate pleas for help, served to further obstruct justice and perpetuate the alleged infringements of his rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Violated Article 21 (Non-discrimination) of the Charter

Firstly, Smedema alleges that Van Weel’s response violated Article 21 (Non-discrimination) of the Charter. This article prohibits discrimination based on various grounds, including personal circumstances. Smedema claims he has been systematically denied legal assistance in the Netherlands and even in Spain due to his opposition to an alleged high-level conspiracy involving the Dutch state. He asserts that lawyers are allegedly forbidden from taking his case, and that police and prosecutors are also unwilling or unable to help him. In this context, Smedema argues that Minister van Weel’s suggestion to simply “consider contacting a lawyer to discuss his options” was not merely unhelpful but actively discriminatory.
Smedema highlights that his repeated communications, including the emails to which Van Weel was responding, explicitly stated his inability to secure legal representation due to the alleged obstruction. Van Weel’s generic advice to seek a lawyer, without acknowledging or addressing the systemic barriers Smedema claimed to be facing, is interpreted by Smedema as a deliberate act of indifference towards his plight and a tacit endorsement of the alleged discriminatory denial of his right to legal aid. Smedema contrasts his situation with that of other victims in the Netherlands, who he believes normally receive legal aid. He argues that Van Weel’s response demonstrated a clear lack of consideration for his specific, allegedly state-induced circumstances, thus constituting discrimination based on his efforts to uncover the truth and seek justice against powerful entities within the Netherlands. He views this as a perpetuation of the alleged protection afforded to those purportedly involved in the conspiracy, while he, in his opposition, is left without the fundamental right to legal assistance.

Infringed upon Article 47 (Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial) of the Charter

Secondly, Smedema argues that Van Weel’s response infringed upon Article 47 (Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial) of the Charter. This article guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal and the right to a fair trial. Smedema contends that the Dutch legal system has consistently failed to provide him with an effective remedy for the grave human rights violations he alleges, including torture and the obstruction of justice.
Smedema emphasizes that his request, forwarded through the intermediary of the Landsadvocaat, Reimer Willem Veldhuis of Pels Rijcken, was specifically for legal arbitration help from the Pels Rijcken Arbitrage team, based, among other things, on the rules of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). He argues that UNCAT places the burden of investigation on the State and mandates the provision of free legal assistance to victims of torture. Smedema believes he, as a victim of alleged torture and ill-treatment by the Dutch state, is entitled to such legal assistance and an independent investigation, which he claims has been denied to him for decades.
Minister van Weel’s response, however, completely ignored Smedema’s specific request for legal arbitration based on UNCAT rules. Instead, the Minister addressed the matter of compensation, stating, “I see then no reason for the granting of a compensation”. Furthermore, he offered the general suggestion to “consider contacting a lawyer”. Smedema views this as a deliberate misrepresentation and evasion of his actual plea for specialized legal help to address severe allegations, including those under UNCAT. He argues that by sidestepping his specific request for arbitration and offering generic advice to seek a lawyer—something he claims is impossible due to the alleged systemic obstruction—Van Weel’s response further denied him an effective remedy. Smedema believes this inaction perpetuates the alleged obstruction of justice and demonstrates a systemic unwillingness within the Dutch Ministry of Justice to address his serious allegations, even when brought to their attention through their own legal advisors, the Landsadvocaat.

Deletion or hiding of crucial evidence by the Dutch state

Smedema also points to the alleged deletion or hiding of crucial evidence by the Dutch state as a factor contributing to the denial of a fair trial. He believes that without legal assistance to navigate the complexities of his case and to potentially compel the disclosure of this evidence, he is effectively prevented from presenting his claims and obtaining a fair hearing. Van Weel’s response, by failing to address the root causes of Smedema’s inability to access justice, including the alleged evidence suppression and denial of legal aid, is seen as complicit in this ongoing violation of his right to a fair trial and an effective remedy.

Summary

In summary, Smedema argues that Minister van Weel’s response allegedly violated Articles 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by:
•
Discriminatorily suggesting he seek legal counsel despite his claims of a systemic denial of such aid due to his opposition to an alleged conspiracy.
•
Denying him an effective remedy by ignoring his specific request for legal arbitration based on UNCAT rules and offering a generic and allegedly unfeasible suggestion to contact a lawyer, thereby perpetuating the alleged obstruction of justice and hindering his ability to obtain a fair hearing.
Smedema believes that these actions by a high-ranking official within the Dutch Ministry of Justice underscore the alleged systematic nature of the human rights violations he has endured and further justify the need for intervention by the European Commission.

Google NotebookLM Plus Insights,

based on the 600+ ‘legal-written-statements of criminal acts’ on this Blog and Ebooks by the victim Author:

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