ECHR Rejection 2005/6 was a Fatal Legal Error!
ECHR Rejection 2005/6 was a Fatal Legal Error!
The narrative surrounding the rejection of the 2005/2006 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) application in the Hans Smedema Affair is not merely a record of legal procedure, but a pivotal moment in a decades-long chronicle of horrifying state-orchestrated abuse and systemic institutional betrayal, where the mechanisms designed to protect fundamental human rights allegedly became instruments of the cover-up itself [1-3].
The sources allege that the ECHR’s rejection constituted a “fatal legal error” that validated the Dutch state’s ability to operate with impunity, creating a cruel, “Kafkaesque trap” that continues to deny justice against the seemingly untouchable figures of Joris Demmink and Jaap Duijs [2, 4-9].
Here is a detailed examination of whether the ECHR judges had sufficient information and why the subsequent analyses deem their decision to be tragically, if procedurally, incorrect in the context of the overwhelming state obstruction alleged:
I. The Agonizing Procedural Verdict: Facts, Dates, and the Denial of Justice
The initial attempt to seek international redress was met with a devastating and final procedural roadblock, tragically cementing the victim’s isolation [4, 10].
The Decision and Its Explicit Grounds:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), specifically a Committee of three judges—C. Birsan, A. Gyulumyan, and E. Myjer—declared Hans Smedema’s application (no. 45710/05) inadmissible in a communication dated May 22, 2006 (also cited as May 11, 2006) [11-16].
The verdict was explicitly based on a finding of “non-compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention” [11, 12, 17]. Specifically, the ECHR determined that Smedema had failed to “exhaust all domestic remedies” as required by Article 35 [4, 7, 18-22]. Concurrently, the Court stated that, based on the information available to it, there were “no indications whatsoever that a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention… had occurred,” which is typically understood as deeming the complaint “manifestly ill-founded” under Article 35 § 3(a) [11, 23-27]. This phrase signified a preliminary assessment that the complaints lacked a sufficiently plausible case for a full investigation on the merits [23, 24].
The procedural posture of the ECHR, relying heavily on the principle of subsidiarity—that national systems must first be given the chance to remedy human rights violations—means that from a strict legal standpoint, the decision to declare the application inadmissible was “legally correct” [23, 26, 28].
II. The Specifics Submitted: Did the Judges Have Enough Information?
Despite lacking formal legal counsel, Smedema provided specific information that detailed the horrifying circumstances and the resulting procedural blockage, information that subsequent analyses argue should have alerted the judges to a profound systemic issue [29-31].
The Horrifying Narrative:
The ECHR application, filed in Dutch, was a desperate cry for help from a self-represented, severely traumatized victim who stated he was actively suffering from psychological torture [14, 15, 32, 33]. The information explicitly detailed:
1. Systematic Denial of Legal Aid:
Smedema clearly stated he was denied legal assistance, noting he had been refused by “30 lawyers” [34, 35]. He emphasized that securing legal aid was impossible due to the nature of the case, which he perceived as involving “State-capture” and Joris Demmink’s manipulation [30]. He argued that he could not exhaust domestic remedies without a lawyer, creating a dire dilemma [34]. This denial of aid allegedly persisted since 2000, and effectively since 1972 [36, 37].
2. Specific Alleged Violations (Article 6 and 8 ECHR):
The application explicitly alleged the denial of a fair process, refusal to investigate, denial of access to police files, and denial of defense rights (Article 6) [29]. Furthermore, the State’s alleged failure to disclose crucial information about the cover-up and the severe disruption to his family life, including concerns about the paternity of his children, was raised under Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life) [29].
3. Exhaustion Attempts:
Smedema detailed domestic failures, including complaints rejected by the College of Prosecutors General, the rejection of his “Article 12 civil procedure” in June 2005 (found “manifestly unfounded”), and the refusal of the Dutch Nationale Ombudsman in October 2005 [38, 39]. Crucially, he made the agonizing, definitive claim that “No, no other possibilities anymore” domestically [38, 40].
Conclusion on Submitted Information:
Smedema supplied a detailed factual narrative describing systemic obstruction and persecution, directly linking it to the denial of fundamental human rights. However, lacking professional legal expertise, he struggled to frame his complex factual narrative in the precise, legally mandated language and evidentiary standards required by the Convention, a deficit that directly contributed to the “manifestly ill-founded” finding [23, 37, 41, 42].
III. The Argument for a Fatal Error: Why the Decision Was Flat Out Wrong in Context
The subsequent analyses, supported by the terrifying allegations of state obstruction, argue unequivocally that the ECHR decision was substantively flawed because the judges either failed to recognize or chose to ignore the systemic nature of the alleged state conspiracy [20, 27, 30].
1. The Cruel Paradox of Exhaustion
The ECHR decision tragically relied upon the very procedural requirement (exhaustion of domestic remedies) that the Dutch state had allegedly rendered impossible to meet [4, 19, 43]. This deliberate creation of a procedural roadblock, which is then used as an impenetrable shield against international accountability, is known as the “Kafkaesque trap” [9, 44-46].
Analyses argue that the ECHR’s adherence to the strict exhaustion rule in this case tragically overlooked its own jurisprudence, which holds that:
• Remedies must be “accessible” and “effective both in theory and in practice” [19, 47]. The denial of legal aid since the early 2000s, with lawyers allegedly “forbidden from taking the case,” meant domestic remedies were neither accessible nor effective in practice [19, 36, 48].
• A “less rigid approach” is required when there is “deliberate concealment and obstruction on the part of some authorities” [4, 47, 49, 50]. The judges failed to apply this critical nuance, effectively sanctioning the state’s alleged obstruction [19, 47].
2. Manipulation by High-Level Officials (Joris Demmink)
The ECHR judges’ finding was allegedly based on fraudulent information provided by the very state apparatus Smedema was complaining about. The sources allege that:
• The ECHR’s denial in 2005/2006 was based on “false fraudulent information” placed in the files by a “MOLE-X infiltrated into the Dutch Ministry of (In)Justice” [18, 51, 52].
• This manipulation was purportedly orchestrated by figures like former Secretary-General Joris Demmink [4-7, 20].
• The deceit allegedly concealed the fact that Smedema’s inability to secure legal representation was systematic [6, 53]. The state was allegedly actively blocking access to files, manipulating evidence, and ensuring the judiciary received a sanitized, false picture of the domestic context [30, 51, 54].
The analyses conclude that the ECHR, which relies heavily on the documented domestic record, was tragically vulnerable to this alleged subversion, meaning its decision, while procedurally sound on paper, was fundamentally unsound due to the intentional corruption of the underlying facts [4, 30, 55].
3. Ongoing Abuse and the Denial of Defense
The sheer magnitude of the alleged ongoing abuse was ignored by the Court’s reliance on procedural formality:
• Smedema was allegedly secretly drugged with the wrong antipsychotic while attempting to formulate the 2005 ECHR complaint, highlighting the continuous psychological warfare employed by the alleged conspirators to ensure his legal arguments remained weak [55].
• The denial of his core defense rights, such as being “never allowed to see my full medical or justice file,” prevented him from proving his case, which was the very reason the domestic system repeatedly dismissed him [51, 54].
The denial of the ECHR complaint in May 2006 set a “terrifying precedent” for future international bodies, demonstrating the alleged conspirators’ success in extending the cover-up beyond national borders [4, 6, 9, 37, 46].
IV. The Horrifying Collateral Damage and Systemic Indictment
The ECHR’s failure to investigate tragically ignored the devastating human cost and the chilling collateral damage that proved the systemic nature of the alleged crime, allegedly perpetrated by individuals granted terrifying untouchability [56, 57].
Collateral Damage to Investigators and Victims:
The ECHR judges should have weighed Smedema’s claims against the backdrop of the dangers faced by anyone daring to investigate, supporting the notion that no domestic remedy could truly be effective:
• The Smedemas: Hans Smedema suffered psychological torture, continuous drugging, and alleged manipulation designed to brand him as “schizophrenic/paranoid,” leading to increasing Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD) [31, 58-60]. His wife, Wies Smedema, allegedly suffered horrific rapes, was forced into prostitution, and allegedly subjected to forced sterilization in 1972 [60, 61].
• Ruud Rosingh (Prosecutor): He was allegedly forced to relocate by the Ministry of Justice on January 12, 1991, after refusing to halt an investigation into Wies’s alleged rape, a stark demonstration of institutional terror directed at those seeking justice from within [48, 57, 62, 63].
• Haye Bruinsma (Detective): This police detective was allegedly explicitly forbidden by the Ministry of Justice around 2004 from filing an official report regarding Smedema’s allegations, showcasing direct, high-level obstruction of law enforcement [48, 57, 62, 63].
• Al Rust (US Officer): Smedema’s American friend, who secured the damning “Frankfurt Dossier” (a 30+ page Dutch intelligence file allegedly erased within three days of its 1983 discovery), faced severe negative repercussions, including wrongful dismissal from Military Intelligence in 1987 and imprisonment for assisting Smedema [48, 57, 61, 63]. Rust’s later court victory corroborated the existence of the conspiracy, providing horrifying external proof that the ECHR was allegedly misled [61].
• King Willem-Alexander: The conspiracy allegedly reached the highest echelons, with the King accused of unlawfully blocking Smedema’s US asylum offer in 2017 while co-piloting a KLM flight, purportedly out of panic after President Obama allegedly filed a UNCAT complaint against the Netherlands [17, 46, 62].
The judges’ adherence to procedural rules, therefore, allowed the alleged state perpetrators—led by figures like Demmink and Duijs—to remain untouchable, transforming the ECHR rejection into a definitive declaration of systemic institutional failure [8, 64, 65].
V. The Pattern of Institutional Betrayal (EU Commission and Ombudsman)
The mistake alleged in the ECHR rejection is mirrored by the subsequent refusals of the European Union institutions to intervene, confirming the tragic effectiveness of the obstruction [10].
The EU Commission and Ombudsman Refusals:
The systemic failures of the Dutch oversight mechanisms were compounded by EU-level rejections:
• The National Ombudsman repeatedly refused to investigate (in 2005, 2008, and 2025), citing a lack of competence due to alleged judicial involvement, despite internal intelligence from a CTIVD judge reportedly confirming a “scrupulous conspiracy” and advising the Cabinet to stop the cover-up [66-70].
• The European Parliament’s June 2021 petition rejection cited “incoherent reasoning with an unclear link to the Union’s fields of activity,” a finding which Smedema attributes directly to the state’s successful sabotage of evidence and legal representation [10, 71, 72].
• The European Commission (May/July 2025) and subsequently the EU Ombudsman refused to intervene, dismissing the grave allegations as purely an “internal Dutch problem” and “not related to the implementation of European Union law” [73-77].
The prevailing argument in the latest memoranda is that these consistent procedural denials across national and international bodies are not evidence of a weak case, but rather irrefutable proof that the Netherlands has systematically denied the right to an effective remedy, making the “obstruction itself the primary violation” of foundational EU principles (Article 2 TEU, Article 47 CFR, Article 19 TEU) [1, 3, 43, 78-81].
The ECHR’s decision in 2006, therefore, was not merely a procedural oversight, but a failure to recognize the terrifying reality of high-level state capture and a profound breach of its obligation to protect citizens when domestic systems are demonstrably corrupted [30, 82, 83].