Please Share! Fight this 'Perfect' 40+ year (Royal) Crime!

Navigating the Hans Smedema Affair: Feasibility of Dutch ‘Kort Geding’ and Strategic Pathways for Redress!

Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive assessment of the strategic viability of initiating a Dutch ‘kort geding’ (summary proceedings) for Mr. Hans Smedema, particularly in light of his urgent circumstances and the profound complexity of his allegations. The analysis confirms that a ‘kort geding’ presents a viable and strategically beneficial option for securing urgent provisional relief. However, its success is contingent upon a meticulously tailored claim that prioritizes immediate, provable harms over the exhaustive historical narrative. The report clarifies the user’s query regarding a 150,000 Euro figure, establishing it as an alleged payment to a key implicated individual, not a damage cap for victims. It further addresses the formidable challenges posed by allegations of high-level state complicity and official denials, underscoring the critical role of the “no access to justice” argument, bolstered by precedents from the East Java torture cases, in overcoming statute of limitations barriers. Finally, the assessment highlights Redress.org as a highly relevant strategic partner, given its specialized mandate and multi-jurisdictional presence, emphasizing the need for a precise and compelling engagement strategy.

1. Introduction: The Hans Smedema Affair – A Quest for Justice and Urgent Relief

The Hans Smedema Affair represents a deeply disturbing and protracted narrative of alleged human rights violations and systemic obstruction of justice within the Netherlands. The claims span several decades, asserting a profound “Perversion of Justice” and “De Facto State-Capture” that Mr. Smedema alleges has been active since 2000, with its origins tracing back to 1972.1

1.1 Overview of Core Allegations and Historical Context

The central allegations describe severe and wide-ranging abuses, including torture, specifically electroshock and chemical submission, brainwashing, sexual abuse, trafficking, and forced infertility.1 A recurring and critical claim is the systematic denial of legal representation, an inability to file charges, and a complete lack of police investigation, all attributed to active, secret obstruction of justice.1 Mr. Smedema states he was falsely declared “Delusional” due to “corrupt bribed Gaslighting and obstruction of Justice by rapists,” a declaration he claims continues to affect him in Spain.1

Joris Demmink, who served as the Dutch Secretary-General of the Ministry of (In)Justice from 2002-2013, is identified as the central figure in this alleged conspiracy, accused of being the “criminal initiator and manipulator” who employed terror, obstruction, and evidence deletion.1 Other individuals implicated include Mr. Smedema’s brother (Johan Smedema), his wife, Prof. Dr. Onno van der Hart (Traumatologist), and Jaap Duijs (Justice/AIVD Official, alleged serial-rapist/Teacher).1 A particularly grave accusation involves Queen Juliana, who is alleged to have been manipulated in 1972/73 into signing a secret decree (KB) to block prosecution and grant immunity to criminals, suggesting profound high-level state complicity.1

Mr. Smedema characterizes the entire situation as a “continuing crime since 1972,” which is “still ongoing” and is “the largest most complex case in the Netherlands and far beyond it!”.1 He further indicates the immense scale of documentation, mentioning “totally around 500 criminal cases and now 680+ posts” and “huge files available 25+MB WordPress XML file with 2,65 GB documents!”.1

The persistent emphasis on the “continuing crime since 1972” and its “ongoing” nature is not merely a descriptive detail; it represents a deliberate legal strategy. This framing aims to circumvent the strict application of the statute of limitations, particularly given the explicit mention of “decades of extra torture” due to forbidden legal representation.1 This approach aligns with successful arguments in Dutch jurisprudence, such as the East Java torture cases, where the limitation period was set aside due to the “extraordinary seriousness of the crimes” and the plaintiff’s lack of access to justice.1 This indicates a sophisticated attempt to bridge the gap between the historical scope of the alleged abuses and the temporal limits of legal action, transforming a decades-old historical narrative into a live legal claim by asserting continuous harm and denial of access to justice.

1.2 Mr. Smedema’s Urgent Needs and Strategic Objectives

Mr. Smedema’s current situation underscores a compelling need for immediate legal intervention. At 77 years old, he describes himself as being in “forced exile” in Spain since 2008, facing a “broke’ financial poverty situation,” an inability to pay taxes, and a maxed credit card.1 His primary objectives are to secure a “large financial advance” and a “quick settlement” to address these pressing financial and personal circumstances.1

He explicitly states his need for legal representation, identifying Redress.org as a potential provider.1 Beyond immediate financial relief, a significant strategic objective for Mr. Smedema is to generate “Media attention and public help!”.1 He draws a parallel between his case and the “famous French Dreyfus Case,” which was “heavily influenced by public and media pressure,” suggesting a desire to leverage public awareness to exert pressure for a broader resolution.1

The dire personal circumstances of Mr. Smedema are not simply sympathetic factors; they form the very legal basis for establishing the “urgency” requirement of a ‘kort geding’.1 His need for a “quick settlement” and “large financial advance” aligns perfectly with the provisional financial relief a ‘kort geding’ can offer, potentially making it a de facto final resolution for his immediate needs.1 This highlights how personal urgency can be strategically leveraged within a legal framework designed for swift action, shifting the focus from a purely merits-based approach to one centered on immediate, practical outcomes.

1.3 Broader Impact and Collateral Damage: The ‘Top of the Iceberg’ Phenomenon

Mr. Smedema’s case, while deeply personal, is presented as the visible “top of the iceberg” for a much wider pattern of alleged systemic abuse and obstruction of justice affecting numerous other victims who are currently unable to seek redress.1 The alleged “systemic obstruction” and “denial of legal representation” have created a devastating trail of collateral damage, demonstrating the ruthless reach of the alleged conspiracy and the “terrifying untouchability” of implicated figures.1

The pervasive nature of the alleged “State-Capture” has reportedly led to severe repercussions for individuals who either became victims themselves or attempted to assist in exposing the truth. This includes instances where individuals who offered help allegedly suffered harm, and others who dared to investigate faced severe professional consequences. For example, a prosecutor was allegedly “forced to relocate” after investigating a rape connected to the case, and police investigations into alleged rapes were reportedly “geseponeerd” (dismissed) by high-level officials.1 Lawyers in the Netherlands and Spain were allegedly “forbidden” from taking Mr. Smedema’s case, leaving him and, by extension, other victims isolated and undefended against the alleged state-sponsored operation.1

The resolution of Mr. Smedema’s case is therefore seen as critical, as it could expose the broader systemic issues and potentially enable many other victims, who are currently “not able to fight back,” to finally seek justice and accountability.1 This underscores the profound societal impact and the potential for a ripple effect once the alleged “State-Capture” is exposed and addressed.

2. Understanding the Dutch ‘Kort Geding’ (Summary Proceedings)

A Dutch ‘kort geding’ represents a specialized and expedited legal process within the civil law system. Its unique characteristics and procedural requirements are crucial for understanding its applicability to a case of the magnitude of the Hans Smedema Affair.

2.1 Nature, Purpose, and Provisional Character of ‘Kort Geding’

A ‘kort geding’ is fundamentally a “quick legal process in civil law cases,” designed for the “swift resolution of legal disputes” in “urgent matters” where an “urgent need for an injunction” or an “immediate remedy” is required.1

A defining characteristic of ‘kort geding’ judgments is their inherently “strictly provisional” and “not conclusive” nature; they “cannot definitively settle disputes” and are “in principle revocable in proceedings on the merits”.1 The presiding judge in these proceedings “refrains from delivering a conclusive verdict”.1 Despite this provisional legal doctrine, in practice, the consequences of preliminary relief measures granted in ‘kort geding’ “can have quite a final character”.1 A significant aspect is that there is generally “no obligation to lodge further proceedings” (a ‘bodemprocedure’ or main proceedings) after a ‘kort geding’, except in specific intellectual property or divorce cases, meaning that many ‘kort geding’ cases serve as both the beginning and the definitive ending of a dispute.1

This creates a strategic opportunity: while legally provisional, the practical impact of a ‘kort geding’ judgment can be definitive, especially for Mr. Smedema’s immediate financial needs.1 This means the ‘kort geding’ can serve as a powerful leverage point for a “quick settlement,” potentially negating the need for a full, lengthy ‘bodemprocedure’ from his perspective.1 This underscores the strategic utility of the ‘kort geding’ not just as a temporary fix, but as a catalyst for broader resolution.

2.2 Procedural Requirements and Inherent Limitations (e.g., Complexity)

The initiation of a ‘kort geding’ requires adherence to specific procedural requirements. The party bringing the proceedings “must state and prove that there is an urgent need for an injunction”.1 Key factors considered for urgency include “the potential loss or damage caused by further delay” and “the likelihood of success at trial”.1

A critical consideration is the inherent limitation regarding complexity. A judge “may even refuse to render a judgement, because the case presented is too complicated for an injunction hearing” or if there is “too much uncertainty (e.g., regarding crucial evidence)”.1 The case “should not require any complex legal evidence or lengthy debate”.1 For the claimant (plaintiff) in summary proceedings before the District Court, representation by a Dutch attorney (‘advocaat’) is mandatory.1

Mr. Smedema’s self-description of his case as “the largest most complex case” with “500 criminal cases” and “huge files” 1 directly clashes with the ‘kort geding’ limitation on complexity.1 This presents a critical strategic tension. The resolution lies in “meticulously and narrowly tailor[ing]” the claim to “specific, provable urgent harms”.1 The argument would be that the

urgency of immediate harm outweighs the factual complexity for the purpose of provisional relief.1 This highlights that the legal team must be highly selective and disciplined in presenting the case, focusing on the immediate, pressing issues rather than attempting to litigate the entire historical and evidentiary complexity of the decades-long affair.

2.3 Strategic Benefits Beyond Immediate Financial Relief (Media, Benchmark, Leverage)

Beyond immediate financial relief, pursuing a ‘kort geding’ in the Hans Smedema Affair offers several significant strategic benefits. A ‘kort geding’ can generate “significant media attention,” which could “exert pressure for a broader settlement”.1 Mr. Smedema’s explicit goal of generating “Media attention and public help!” aligns perfectly with the quick, public nature of ‘kort geding’ proceedings and their immediate judgments.1 This media attention could be a strategic advantage, especially given Mr. Smedema’s comparison of his case to the French Dreyfus Affair, which was heavily influenced by public and media pressure.1

While a ‘kort geding’ judgment is provisional, its role as a “benchmark” for potential later main proceedings is strategically significant.1 A positive outcome, even if provisional, could significantly strengthen Mr. Smedema’s position in any subsequent full civil procedure or settlement negotiations.1 Furthermore, a ‘kort geding’ is not just about immediate relief; it is a “powerful strategic tool to gain legal leverage and public visibility”.1 It could also potentially result in an “order to cease specific ongoing obstruction”.1

This reveals the ‘kort geding’ as a multi-faceted strategic instrument for broader impact. Its swift, public nature can create media pressure, establish a judicial “benchmark,” and generate legal leverage. All of these contribute to Mr. Smedema’s overarching goal of a “quick settlement” and public exposure, even if the full “State Capture” narrative is not definitively resolved in summary proceedings. This demonstrates how legal and public relations strategies can be intertwined for complex human rights cases.

Table: Applicability of ‘Kort Geding’ Requirements to the Hans Smedema Affair

‘Kort Geding’ Requirement	Description of Requirement	Applicability to Hans Smedema Affair	Strategic Implication/Mitigation	Relevant Snippet IDs
Urgency	Immediate remedy required due to potential loss/damage from delay.	Strongly Supported: Mr. Smedema’s age (77), severe financial distress, and ongoing alleged harm.	Focus on immediate and ongoing harm (financial, health, access to justice).	1
Provisional Nature	Judgments are temporary and not conclusive, but can have practical finality.	Favorable: Aligns with Mr. Smedema’s goal of “quick settlement” and “financial advance.”	Acknowledge provisional nature but emphasize practical impact and pressure for settlement.	1
Not Overly Complex	Case should not require complex legal evidence or lengthy debate.	Significant Challenge: Self-described as “largest, most complex case” with “huge files.”	Narrowly define the claim to avoid extensive historical debate; focus on specific, provable urgent harms.	1
Mandatory Legal Representation for Plaintiff	Claimant must be represented by a Dutch attorney.	Directly Met: Mr. Smedema explicitly seeks legal representation from Redress.	Secure experienced Dutch legal counsel.	1
Sufficient Evidence	Claimant must provide sufficient evidence for relief.	Careful Selection: Vast amount of documents (500+ cases, 680+ posts, 2.65 GB documents).	Carefully curate and present only the most compelling and directly relevant evidence for the narrow claim. Leverage external documentation (US, UNCAT).	1
Likelihood of Success	Judge considers likelihood of success at trial for the requested relief.	Potential, but Challenging: Strong allegations but high bar for state liability and overcoming official denials.	Focus on specific, provable torts (e.g., denial of access to justice, specific instances of obstruction causing financial loss).	1
Balance of Interests	Judge weighs interests of both parties and potential consequences of granting/denying injunction.	Favorable for Plaintiff: Mr. Smedema’s severe personal and financial hardship versus State’s interest.	Emphasize the irreparable harm to Mr. Smedema if no action is taken.	1

3. Clarifying Damages and Financial Redress in the Hans Smedema Affair

Understanding the financial aspects of Mr. Smedema’s case is crucial for setting appropriate expectations and formulating a viable legal strategy.

3.1 The 150,000 Euro Figure: Context and Misconceptions

The user’s query mentions a perceived “max damage redress of 150.000 euro.” However, a review of the provided material clarifies this figure. Mr. Smedema’s email explicitly states: “Payment possible by Dutch Free Legal victim help on special request, Joris Demmink received 150.000+ Euro! Plus a huge bonus from damages, and easy possible financing of your other cases”.1

This confirms that the 150,000 Euro figure refers to an amount that Joris Demmink, identified as the “criminal initiator and manipulator,” allegedly received. It does not refer to a damage cap for victims. Instead, it suggests a financial benefit for an alleged perpetrator, possibly related to legal defense or other financial aspects, rather than a limitation on victim compensation.1 This direct clarification of the misconception is crucial, as a perceived cap could lead Mr. Smedema to undervalue his potential claim or misunderstand the nature of the alleged corruption. It also subtly reinforces the “state-capture” narrative by highlighting alleged financial benefits for the alleged perpetrator.

3.2 Potential for Provisional Financial Advance through ‘Kort Geding’

Mr. Smedema’s urgent financial situation provides compelling grounds for seeking a financial advance through a ‘kort geding’. His advanced age (77 years old), “broke’ financial poverty situation,” inability to pay taxes, and maxed credit card strongly support the necessity for immediate provisional measures.1 He explicitly seeks a “large financial advance” and “quick settlement”.1

A ‘kort geding’ can indeed offer “provisional financial relief,” and monetary compensation is listed as one of the available remedies.1 While ‘kort geding’ judgments are “strictly provisional” and “not conclusive,” in practice, the consequences of preliminary relief measures “can have quite a final character”.1 This means a successful outcome on provisional measures, such as a financial advance, could be a de facto victory that significantly influences future negotiations or even negates the need for a full ‘bodemprocedure’ from the plaintiff’s perspective.1 The argument for a financial advance would be based on the “imminent risk of irreparable damage” to Mr. Smedema’s health and financial well-being, and the “likelihood of success at trial” for some underlying torts.1

Given Mr. Smedema’s age and financial distress, obtaining a provisional financial advance becomes a primary, tangible objective of the ‘kort geding’, rather than merely a secondary benefit. This immediate relief can alleviate his suffering and provide resources for further legal action, demonstrating a practical, victim-centered approach that prioritizes his most pressing needs.

3.3 Broader Damages and Compensation under Dutch Tort Law for Human Rights Violations

The allegations in the Hans Smedema Affair, including torture, brainwashing, chemical submission, sexual abuse, and obstruction of justice, would fall under the broad scope of Dutch tort law as “wrongful acts” (Article 6:162 Dutch Civil Code).1 Under this framework, remedies can include monetary compensation and injunctions.1 Dutch law explicitly allows for civil claims against the State for wrongful acts, including torture.1

The East Java torture cases provide compelling precedent, demonstrating that the Dutch State can be held liable for mistreatment by its forces, with damages awarded even for non-monetary harm.1 This historical precedent indicates a legal pathway for substantial compensation for the severe human rights violations alleged by Mr. Smedema. The 2009 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) estimate of a “50 million settlement” in Mr. Smedema’s case provides a potential benchmark for the scale of damages that could be sought in a full ‘bodemprocedure’, which would be distinct from the provisional relief obtainable through a ‘kort geding’.1

This highlights a crucial distinction: while a ‘kort geding’ can provide provisional financial relief, the full extent of damages for “decades of extra torture” and “State-Capture” could indeed be in the millions, as suggested by the 2009 DOJ estimate.1 This underscores that the ‘kort geding’ is a tactical step for addressing immediate needs and building leverage, not the ultimate resolution for the vast scale of alleged harm. The overall strategy must manage this expectation, emphasizing the ‘kort geding’ as a stepping stone towards comprehensive compensation.

4. Navigating “State-Capture” and High-Level Complicity

The allegations of “De Facto State-Capture” and high-level complicity present the most formidable challenges and, paradoxically, some of the most compelling legal arguments in the Hans Smedema Affair.

4.1 Challenges of Proving State Complicity and Overcoming Official Denials

Proving such extensive “State-Capture” and high-level complicity in civil proceedings, especially in summary proceedings, would necessitate an “extraordinary level of compelling evidence”.1 Civil proceedings “tend to rely heavily on prior criminal convictions,” which Mr. Smedema states were “forbidden” in his case, necessitating a robust and creative civil evidentiary strategy.1

A significant hurdle is the direct contradiction from official sources. For instance, the US State Department’s human rights assessment states “no known credible reports that government officials employed them [torture]” in the Netherlands, directly contradicting Mr. Smedema’s core claims.1 This “official denial will be a significant hurdle to overcome in court, requiring compelling counter-evidence”.1 Further complicating matters are allegations of a secret “Royal Special Decree” by Queen Juliana granting immunity in 1972/73 and King Willem-Alexander allegedly blocking Mr. Smedema’s US asylum offer in 2017.1

The stark contradiction between Mr. Smedema’s allegations of systemic state torture and these official denials creates a significant “credibility gap” that the legal team must bridge. However, Mr. Smedema’s extensive engagement with US authorities (FBI/CIA, DOJ, Judge Rex J. Ford), the UNCAT complaint, and EU bodies signifies a “significant body of external investigation, documentation, and potentially, corroboration”.1 The mention of a “30+ page crucial Frankfurt Dutch intelligence dossier from 1983” and the UNCAT case dossier suggests substantial external validation of at least some aspects of Mr. Smedema’s claims.1 This external validation, even without prior criminal convictions, could lend “considerable weight and credibility” to his claims, potentially mitigating the burden of proof in a Dutch court.1 This is about leveraging international soft power and investigative findings in a domestic civil context, making it harder for the State to simply deny the allegations.

4.2 Overcoming the Statute of Limitations: The “No Access to Justice” Argument and East Java Precedent

The general statute of limitations for tort claims in the Netherlands is five years after the injured party became aware of the damage and the responsible person.1 Given the alleged start date of 1972/2000 for Mr. Smedema’s allegations, this would ordinarily be a major legal obstacle for many of the historical claims.

Crucially, the East Java torture cases provide a “powerful precedent for setting aside the statute of limitations” in Dutch courts.1 The courts ruled that the application of the limitation period would be “unfair” due to the “extraordinary seriousness of the crimes” and, significantly, if the plaintiff was “de facto kept from access to justice for a long period of time”.1 Mr. Smedema’s central claims of “no legal representation (actively forbidden!)” and “active secret obstruction of justice” by the Ministry of (In)Justice directly align with this established exception.1 The period is deemed to start when the plaintiff knew about the possibility of suing and this knowledge could not have been available earlier due to obstacles.1

Mr. Smedema’s description of a “Kafkaesque and Orwellian” situation where legal avenues are “systematically obstructed” and he was “forbidden” legal representation 1 is not just a narrative of suffering, but the very

basis for overcoming the statute of limitations through the “no access to justice” argument.1 The alleged systemic obstruction, which created the “trap,” paradoxically provides the legal key to unlock the decades-old claims. This transforms the alleged “Kafkaesque trap” into a potent legal leverage point, demonstrating how the severity and systemic nature of the alleged abuses can be turned into a legal advantage.

4.3 Alleged Violations of Dutch Constitutional Law

Mr. Smedema’s allegations extend to fundamental violations of the Dutch Constitution. He claims a violation of Article 1 (Equality before the law) due to systematic persecution and denial of basic legal rights, while alleged perpetrators, particularly Joris Demmink, received vast sums for their defense (€150,000).1 The terrifying allegation of a secret “Royal Special Decree” granting immunity further challenges the notion of equality before the law.1

He also alleges a violation of Article 7 (Freedom of expression) through chilling suppression of his attempts to expose the truth, with media outlets allegedly unwilling to report on his case.1 Furthermore, claims of unlawful surveillance and intrusion into his private life, including unauthorized wiretapping by state agencies like the AIVD, suggest a violation of Article 10 (Right to privacy).1

A central and devastating theme is the alleged violation of Article 15 (Due process and fair trial). This includes the systematic denial of legal representation for decades, with lawyers allegedly “forbidden” from taking his case.1 Allegations detail ruthless obstruction of domestic investigations (e.g., police forbidden from filing reports, prosecutors forced to relocate), suppression/destruction/manipulation of evidence (e.g., “Frankfurt Dossier” erased, DNA tests falsified, files deleted by Ministry of Justice/AIVD), and manipulation of international bodies (e.g., false information to ECHR leading to rejection of complaint).1 Mr. Smedema contends this created a “cruel, Kafkaesque trap” where legal avenues were blocked due to hidden or manipulated facts.1

Finally, Mr. Smedema alleges a “misuse of Article 120 of the Dutch Constitution” (prohibiting judicial review of parliamentary acts), which he describes as being “grotesquely perverted and weaponized” to act as an “impenetrable shield for alleged criminal complicity at the highest echelons of the state”.1

The alleged violations of these fundamental Dutch constitutional articles are not isolated incidents but rather symptoms of the alleged “De Facto State-Capture”.1 If proven, these violations demonstrate a fundamental breakdown of the rule of law within the Netherlands, lending significant weight to the claim that the system itself is compromised, which is crucial for arguing state liability. This moves the case beyond individual torts to a systemic challenge against the integrity of the Dutch state, strengthening the argument for significant state culpability and the need for comprehensive redress.

4.4 Alleged Violations of European Union Law (Rule of Law, Judicial Independence, Anti-Corruption, Mutual Trust)

Systemic corruption and obstruction of justice within a Member State’s Ministry of Justice, as alleged in the Hans Smedema Affair, represent a profound and multi-faceted violation of European Union law. Such a scenario fundamentally undermines the foundational principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which is a core EU value.1 This compromises legality, legal certainty, the prohibition of arbitrary power, equality before the law, and, critically, the requirement for independent courts.1

Furthermore, it breaches obligations related to judicial independence and the fundamental rights to an effective remedy and a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR).1 A corrupt Ministry of Justice can manipulate judicial appointments and promotions, misuse disciplinary proceedings, politically motivate resource allocation, and directly obstruct justice, thereby impeding judicial independence and access to justice.1

The conduct involved would also likely contravene specific EU anti-corruption frameworks, both existing and proposed. This includes criminal offenses such as bribery, trading in influence, abuse of functions, misappropriation, and, particularly relevant to this case, obstruction of justice.1 The failure of a compromised justice system to effectively combat fraud against the EU budget also violates the Member State’s obligations under the PIF Directive (Directive (EU) 2017/1371) and Article 325 TFEU.1

Critically, the systemic deficiencies resulting from Ministry of Justice corruption inevitably erode the principle of mutual trust, which is fundamental to cooperation within the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ).1 This erosion can lead to other Member States refusing to execute cooperation requests (e.g., European Arrest Warrants) from a justice system perceived as compromised.1

Mr. Smedema’s assertion of a “systemic gap in the current EU systems” 1 is strongly corroborated by this analysis of EU law violations. The alleged “State-Capture” in the Netherlands, if true, directly undermines the very foundations of the EU, particularly the principle of mutual trust essential for cross-border judicial cooperation. This elevates the case from a national human rights issue to an EU-wide systemic threat, potentially triggering broader EU enforcement mechanisms such as the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation or, in extremis, the Article 7 TEU procedure.1 This positions Mr. Smedema’s case as a test case for the EU’s commitment to its foundational values.

Table: Summary of Potential EU Law Violations Stemming from Systemic MoJ Corruption

Violated EU Law / Principle	Manifestation in Corrupt MoJ Scenario	Core Impact/ Consequence
Article 2 TEU – Rule of Law	Arbitrary exercise of executive power within MoJ; disregard for legal constraints; systemic inequality; failure to ensure independent judicial control.	Breach of foundational EU values; erosion of democratic principles; questioning of membership commitments.
Article 19(1) TEU – Effective Judicial Protection	Systemic undermining of judicial independence (via appointments, discipline, resources, pressure); failure to ensure courts meet EU standards.	Compromised national judicial system; inability of courts to fulfil EU law functions; systemic violation of EU obligation.
Article 47 CFR – Right to Effective Remedy & Fair Trial	Denial of access to an independent/impartial tribunal; manipulation of proceedings; obstruction preventing fair hearings; lack of effective remedies due to impunity.	Violation of individual fundamental rights; denial of justice; lack of accountability.
EU Anti-Corruption Law (e.g., proposed Directive)	Specific acts of bribery, trading in influence, abuse of function, misappropriation, obstruction of justice, potentially illicit enrichment by MoJ officials.	Criminal conduct pervasive within justice administration; impunity for corruption offences.
PIF Directive (2017/1371) / Art 325 TFEU	Failure to ensure effective investigation/prosecution of EU fraud due to MoJ interference/incapacity; shielding perpetrators; creating impunity for PIF offences.	EU financial interests unprotected; breach of obligation to combat fraud against EU budget; justification for conditionality.
Principle of Mutual Trust (AFSJ)	Creation of systemic deficiencies in justice system raising fundamental rights concerns; loss of confidence from other Member States’ judiciaries.	Paralysis of cross-border judicial cooperation (e.g., EAWs); fragmentation of AFSJ; undermining EU security.

5. Strategic Approach: Tailoring the Claim for Maximum Impact

Given the complexities and specific limitations of a ‘kort geding’, a highly strategic approach to framing Mr. Smedema’s claim is paramount.

5.1 Feasibility of Splitting the Case into Multiple Criminal Acts for ‘Kort Geding’

Mr. Smedema inquires whether splitting his case into “100 most crucial criminal acts” can overcome the perceived damage limit. However, this approach is not recommended for a ‘kort geding’.1 A ‘kort geding’ judge “may even refuse to render a judgement, because the case presented is too complicated for an injunction hearing” or if there is “too much uncertainty (e.g., regarding crucial evidence)”.1 The case “should not require any complex legal evidence or lengthy debate”.1 Mr. Smedema’s case is already self-described as “the largest most complex case” with “totally around 500 criminal cases”.1

Attempting to present “100 crucial criminal acts” would likely exacerbate the complexity issue, overwhelming the preliminary relief judge and significantly increasing the risk of refusal.1 While breaking down a complex case into smaller, seemingly manageable criminal acts is a logical approach for a full trial, it is counter-productive for a ‘kort geding’. This highlights a crucial distinction in legal strategy: for summary proceedings, the goal is extreme simplification and a sharp focus on

immediate needs, not comprehensive adjudication of past events. The strategic error lies in focusing on the number of acts rather than the nature of the relief sought. A ‘kort geding’ is about provisional measures for ongoing harm, not a detailed criminal review.

5.2 Recommendation: Narrowly Tailoring the ‘Kort Geding’ Claim for Urgent, Provable Harms

A crucial strategic refinement for the ‘kort geding’ is to pivot the primary focus from the underlying historical crimes to the State’s systemic obstruction of justice.1 This approach directly addresses the ‘kort geding’ limitation on complexity, as it allows the claim to concentrate on demonstrable and ongoing failures by the Ministry of Justice, rather than requiring a full evidentiary review of decades of alleged abuses.1

The refusal by the Dutch authorities to initiate an internal independent UNCAT investigation, which is mandatory under EU law, serves as compelling evidence of this obstruction. Therefore, the central question to pose during the ‘kort geding’ should be: “Why did the Ministry of Justice refuse to investigate? Why this huge, absurd obstruction, even as recently as February 4, 2025, by Minister David van Weel?”1

This specific focus on the State’s ongoing failure to uphold its legal obligations, rather than the exhaustive historical narrative, allows the ‘kort geding’ to seek urgent provisional measures, such as a specific financial advance or an order to cease particular ongoing obstruction, without getting bogged down in the full complexity of the underlying crimes.1 The argument would be that the “immediate, ongoing harm outweighs the factual complexity for the purpose of provisional relief”.1 This means the ‘kort geding’ should not aim for a definitive ruling on the entirety of the “Perversion of Justice” since 1972, but rather seek provisional measures based on the “imminent risk of irreparable damage” to Mr. Smedema’s health and financial well-being.1

5.3 Leveraging External Documentation and International Dimensions

Mr. Smedema’s extensive engagement with U.S. authorities (FBI/CIA, DOJ, Judge Rex J. Ford), the UNCAT complaint, and EU bodies is not merely a chronicle of failed attempts; it signifies a “significant body of external investigation, documentation, and potentially, corroboration”.1 The mention of a “30+ page crucial Frankfurt Dutch intelligence dossier from 1983” and the UNCAT case dossier suggests substantial external validation of at least some aspects of Mr. Smedema’s claims.1

This external documentation and the involvement of high-level U.S. officials could lend “considerable weight and credibility” to Mr. Smedema’s claims, potentially mitigating the burden of proof in a Dutch court.1 These external investigations, even if they did not lead to criminal convictions, provide a crucial narrative of independent scrutiny and potential corroboration. Presenting this to a Dutch court can shift the burden of disproving such external findings onto the State, making their denials less credible. This represents a strategic use of “soft power” in litigation, effectively leveraging non-judicial processes to influence judicial outcomes.

6. Redress.org: A Highly Relevant Strategic Partner

The assessment of Redress.org reveals its profound and direct relevance to the complex challenges presented by the Hans Smedema case.

6.1 Redress.org’s Mandate, Expertise, and Multi-Jurisdictional Alignment

Redress.org’s core mission is to combat torture, deliver justice and reparation for survivors, challenge impunity for perpetrators, and advocate for legal and policy reforms.1 Their explicit focus on state responsibility, universal jurisdiction, and financial accountability for perpetrators directly aligns with Mr. Smedema’s complex claims, including alleged state-sponsored torture and “State-capture by Joris Demmink”.1

Crucially, Redress.org operates with offices in London and The Hague and has active cases and projects in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States—precisely the jurisdictions central to Mr. Smedema’s multi-faceted case.1 This unparalleled geographical and thematic alignment makes them a potentially ideal strategic partner. Their “victim-centered” and “holistic strategic litigation” approach aims to represent individual clients while simultaneously using these legal cases to “challenge the underlying problem” and “target the policy reasons that enabled the torture to take place”.1 This exceptional fit, despite their stated capacity limitations, is a significant asset for Mr. Smedema. It means he has identified an organization whose core work directly addresses the unique complexities of his case, increasing the likelihood of understanding and effective representation if they take it on.

6.2 Strategic Considerations for Engaging with Redress.org

While Redress.org demonstrates highly relevant expertise, their operational capacity is limited, as they accept “only a few new cases every year”.1 This means that a strategic approach to engagement is paramount.

A “highly detailed and concise submission” is essential.1 This document should clearly articulate the specific allegations of torture and ill-treatment, explicitly linking them to UNCAT definitions.1 It must detail the alleged state complicity and high-level cover-up, including any “higher Spanish level” involvement and “misleading information” from the Dutch Ministry of Justice.1 The multi-jurisdictional nature of the case, highlighting the involvement of the UK, Netherlands, Spain, and USA, and how this aligns with Redress.org’s geographical reach, should be prominently featured.1 The “systematic denial of legal representation” should also be emphasized, as it underscores the need for Redress.org’s holistic support approach.1 Referencing the “Assessment of Spain’s Obligations Regarding Allegations of Torture and Human Rights Violations (2013-2014),” which itself cites Redress.org, can further strengthen the submission.1 Meticulous documentation of all communications, alleged incidents, and any responses received is vital for any potential legal action or advocacy efforts.1

Given Redress.org’s selective intake, the engagement strategy requires precision and a compelling strategic narrative. It is not enough to simply present the facts; the submission must articulate why Mr. Smedema’s case aligns with Redress.org’s specific strategic impact goals, such as challenging systemic impunity or setting legal precedents, rather than just being another victim’s plea. This transforms the inquiry into a persuasive argument for why Redress.org should prioritize this case.

7. Conclusion and Comprehensive Recommendations

The investigation into the possibilities of a Dutch legal ‘kort geding’ in the Hans Smedema Affair reveals a nuanced landscape of opportunities and formidable challenges.

7.1 Summary of Key Findings and Opportunities

The analysis confirms that the urgency for a ‘kort geding’ is well-established, primarily due to Mr. Smedema’s advanced age and dire financial situation.1 Legal grounds for claims exist under Dutch tort law and human rights precedents, particularly for torture and wrongful acts against the state.1 A critical finding is that the “no access to justice” argument, powerfully supported by the East Java torture cases, offers a compelling pathway to circumvent the statute of limitations for the decades-long allegations.1

However, the immense complexity of the Hans Smedema Affair remains the primary hurdle for a ‘kort geding’, necessitating a meticulously and narrowly tailored claim.1 Despite its provisional nature, a ‘kort geding’ offers significant strategic benefits beyond immediate financial relief, including generating media attention, establishing a powerful benchmark for future proceedings, and gaining legal leverage.1 The user’s query regarding a 150,000 Euro figure has been clarified as an alleged payment to Joris Demmink, not a victim’s compensation cap.1 Finally, Redress.org has been identified as a highly relevant strategic partner due to its specialized expertise and multi-jurisdictional alignment with the case’s complexities.1

7.2 Actionable Recommendations for Mr. Smedema’s Path Forward

Based on the foregoing analysis, the following actionable recommendations are critical for Mr. Smedema’s path forward:

Secure Mandatory Legal Representation: Prioritizing the engagement of an experienced Dutch attorney is a non-negotiable prerequisite for initiating a ‘kort geding’.1 Redress.org, if engaged, could play a pivotal role in facilitating this.
Narrowly Tailor the ‘Kort Geding’ Claim: The legal strategy for the ‘kort geding’ must meticulously focus on a specific, urgent, and immediately provable aspect of the alleged ongoing harm.1 This should involve seeking urgent provisional measures such as a specific financial advance, an order to cease ongoing obstruction, or an order for the state to facilitate access to legal aid or documents. The aim should be to avoid attempting to litigate the entire historical narrative of “State-Capture” in summary proceedings.
Leverage “No Access to Justice” Argument: A robust argument must be built for setting aside the statute of limitations, drawing heavily on the precedent established in the East Java torture cases.1 This argument should emphasize how the alleged systemic obstruction and denial of legal representation prevented Mr. Smedema from seeking redress earlier.
Strategic Use of Evidence: While Mr. Smedema possesses “huge files,” the legal team must strategically curate and present only the most compelling and directly relevant evidence that supports the narrowly defined urgent claim.1 Overwhelming the preliminary relief judge with excessive historical detail should be avoided. External documentation from U.S. and UNCAT investigations should be prioritized for its potential corroborative value.
Anticipate and Address State Denial: The legal team must be prepared to counter official denials of torture and state complicity, presenting compelling counter-evidence that directly challenges the prevailing narrative.1
Emphasize Practical Outcomes: While acknowledging the provisional nature of a ‘kort geding’ judgment, the argument should highlight the practical impact of a favorable ruling in terms of immediate financial relief for Mr. Smedema and its potential to pressure the State towards a broader settlement, aligning with his urgent needs and desire for a “quick settlement”.1
Consider Coordinated Media Strategy: Given Mr. Smedema’s emphasis on “radical transparency” and generating “Media attention,” a coordinated media strategy alongside the legal proceedings could amplify pressure and align with the public nature of ‘kort geding’ judgments.1

7.3 Long-Term Strategic Considerations for Broader Justice and Accountability

Mr. Smedema’s case is not a single legal battle but a multi-front effort. The ‘kort geding’ is one tactical battle, but the overall strategy must encompass legal, political, and public advocacy fronts, leveraging each for cumulative impact.

Beyond ‘Kort Geding’: While a ‘kort geding’ addresses urgent needs and provides provisional relief, a full ‘bodemprocedure’ would be necessary for comprehensive damages and definitive rulings on the entire “State-Capture” narrative.1
Continued Engagement with Spanish Authorities: The current engagement with the Spanish Prime Minister represents a crucial opportunity that should be leveraged, emphasizing Spain’s UNCAT obligations and the alleged complicity on its soil.1
Explore Other International Avenues: If Redress.org cannot take on the case directly, or in parallel with their involvement, other international mechanisms can be explored. This includes submitting a formal communication to the UN Committee Against Torture under Article 22 of UNCAT (if Spain has made the necessary declaration) and engaging with the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. Further complaints to the European Commission or European Parliament could also be considered, specifically highlighting violations of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the foundational principles of mutual trust and judicial cooperation within the EU.1
Independent Legal Counsel: Seeking independent legal counsel specializing in international human rights law, ideally from a jurisdiction outside of Spain and the Netherlands, is recommended to advise on strategy and formal legal actions, including potential litigation in international forums.1
Public Advocacy and Media Engagement: Continued strategic engagement with reputable international human rights organizations and media outlets could significantly increase public and political pressure for accountability and investigation. This can amplify the legal efforts and create a broader environment conducive to justice.1

This holistic approach is essential for a case of this systemic nature and magnitude, recognizing that legal avenues alone may be insufficient against alleged “State-Capture.” It requires sustained pressure from all angles, with each action building upon the last to achieve comprehensive justice and accountability.

Works cited

Dutch Legal Action for Smedema Affair.pdf