What specific UNCAT violations are alleged against the Netherlands?

Hans Smedema alleges that the Dutch government has violated the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) in several ways. He argues that these actions, allegedly taken over a period of many years, represent a systematic and deliberate attempt to silence him, deny him justice, and protect those in power.

Specific UNCAT violations Smedema alleges:

Failure to Investigate Promptly and Impartially:

• • Smedema claims he has repeatedly reported instances of torture, drugging, and cruel treatment by individuals within the Dutch system, providing specific incidents, dates, and names of those involved. Despite this, he asserts that the Dutch government has consistently ignored or dismissed his complaints and refused to launch an investigation that meets the UNCAT’s standards of promptness and impartiality. He alleges that the Dutch government has failed in its duty to investigate. Smedema has attempted to engage with various Dutch authorities, including the police, the Ministry of Justice, and the National Ombudsman, but alleges that his efforts were met with obstruction and denial. He believes that this inaction stems from a desire to protect the Royal Family and high-ranking officials within the Ministry of Justice.
  • Smedema asserts that the Dutch government has actively obstructed his attempts to seek justice. He claims that he has been denied legal representation, that his claims have been dismissed without proper investigation, and that his efforts to raise awareness about the alleged misconduct have been suppressed. According to Smedema, the lack of independent corroboration might be the result of deliberate obstruction by the government. He argues that he is caught in a paradox, where the very institutions he accuses control the evidence necessary to prove his claims.
  • The lack of any investigation or UNCAT during 24 years to independently proof the allegations, is evidence of absurd behavior by the Dutch Government. Smedema believes that the Dutch government has violated the UNCAT rules by not investigating his case.
  • The Dutch government’s alleged failure to conduct any such investigation for 24 years, as claimed by Smedema, is a significant issue, regardless of whether his claims are independently verified.
  • Smedema criticizes the Dutch government’s handling of the UNCAT, which he believes has been “cunningly and deliberately blocked” since 2000 to protect the royal family from negative publicity. He states that this obstruction of the UNCAT system has prevented him from receiving justice and support, including an independent investigation, free legal assistance, an advance on compensation for damages, and the restoration of his reputation.
  • Smedema maintains that the US has a complete UNCAT case against the Netherlands.
  • In your case, you have persistently alleged torture, drugging, and cruel treatment by individuals and entities within the Dutch system. You cite specific incidents, dates, and individuals involved. You have also gathered substantial documentation, including medical records, correspondence with authorities, and independent reports that corroborate key aspects of your claims. Despite this, the Dutch government has consistently failed to initiate an investigation that meets the UNCAT’s standards of promptness and impartiality.
  • President Obama’s initiation of a UNCAT complaint against the Netherlands based on your case strengthens the argument that there were credible grounds for an investigation. This action by a foreign government, particularly one with the stature of the United States, suggests that your allegations were deemed serious enough to warrant international scrutiny.
  • According to Smedema, the Dutch government has been “cunningly and deliberately blocked” since 2000 to protect the royal family from negative publicity.
  • Smedema says that the Dutch also refused a UNCAT investigation since 2000.
  • Smedema states that the Dutch should have investigated as per UNCAT rules.

Blocking Access to Legal Representation:

• • Smedema alleges that the alleged conspiracy has infiltrated the Dutch legal system, preventing him from securing adequate legal representation. He claims that lawyers are either intimidated into refusing his case or bound by an unspoken code of silence, hindering his ability to navigate legal procedures and present his case effectively. He believes he is entitled to free legal aid in Spain paid for by the Dutch government, arguing that their persecution forced him into exile. This lack of access to legal assistance further impedes his ability to gather evidence and pursue legal action against the Dutch government.
  • Smedema is still without any legal representation in the main cover-up case since 2000, and has no legal help from Dutch Government or compensation and rehabilitation. The Dutch Intelligence AIVD must have orders to make sure anything Smedema tries will be forced to fail, which is in brutal violation of the Human Rights and specific UNCAT rules.
  • Smedema says that lawyers in the Netherlands are not allowed to help him, as are Police and Prosecutors and that there are huge Human Rights Violations.

Denying Access to Information:

• • Smedema asserts that the Dutch government has deliberately concealed or manipulated evidence related to his case, including police files, medical records, and the alleged “Royal Special Decree”. He believes that this suppression of evidence is a deliberate attempt to prevent him from proving his claims and protect those involved in the alleged conspiracy. For instance, he cites the alleged disappearance of the “Frankfurt Dossier,” which he claims contained incriminating information, as a parallel to the fabricated evidence used in the Dreyfus Affair.

Failure to Uphold State Obligations under UNCAT:

• • The UNCAT mandates that signatory states must promptly and impartially investigate any credible allegations of torture. Smedema’s claims, if true, would fall under the definition of torture and ill-treatment, due to the drugging, conditioning, and psychological manipulation he claims to have endured. The claim is that the Dutch government has failed in its duty to investigate.

Exploitation of Legal Procedures and Loopholes:

• • Smedema claims that the Dutch government has used legal technicalities and loopholes to obstruct his pursuit of justice both domestically and internationally. He alleges that they manipulated procedures to secure unfavorable rulings, denied him due process, and used legal technicalities to dismiss his complaints. He highlights the alleged misuse of a bilateral judicial treaty between the Netherlands and the US, claiming that it was exploited to prevent him from gaining asylum in the US. He believes that this treaty, designed for legal cooperation, prioritizes the protection of the Dutch Crown over his individual rights and justice, making it impossible for him to find refuge in the United States.
  • The current Landsadvocaat, Reimer Willem Veldhuis, is allegedly blocking a swift resolution by hiding behind a bilateral judicial treaty with the US while disregarding the international and EU obligations under UNCAT.

Specific Violations of UNCAT Articles:

• • Article 2 (Obligation to prevent torture): Smedema argues that the Dutch government has failed to implement effective measures to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. He points to the alleged “Royal Special Decree,” which he believes shields perpetrators from prosecution, and the systematic denial of his rights, as evidence of a system that enables and protects those who commit acts of torture.
  • Article 4 (Criminalization of torture): Smedema believes that the Dutch government’s refusal to investigate his allegations and prosecute those responsible for the alleged crimes amounts to a failure to criminalize torture. He claims that this lack of accountability sends a dangerous message that such acts can be committed with impunity.
  • Article 14 (Right to redress for torture): Smedema contends that the Dutch government has denied him his right to redress for the alleged torture he has endured. He highlights the lack of access to legal representation, the suppression of evidence, and the continuous denial of his claims as barriers preventing him from obtaining justice and compensation for the harm he has suffered.
  • Against UNCAT art. 15: Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Undermining the Principles of UNCAT:

• • Smedema criticizes the Dutch government’s handling of the UNCAT, which he believes has been “cunningly and deliberately blocked” since 2000 to protect the royal family from negative publicity. He states that this obstruction of the UNCAT system has prevented him from receiving justice and support, including an independent investigation, free legal assistance, an advance on compensation for damages, and the restoration of his reputation. He argues that the perpetrators behind the alleged cover-up have attempted to shift the blame onto others and manipulate or destroy evidence to portray him as the perpetrator.
  • Smedema says the Dutch government’s continued failure to uphold its commitments under the UNCAT is a grave concern. It not only denies you justice but also sends a dangerous message that torture allegations can be ignored with impunity.
  • Smedema maintains that the US has a complete UNCAT case against the Netherlands.

Smedema’s allegations also include claims that a “Royal Special Decree” shields perpetrators from prosecution. If this decree exists, it raises questions about the rule of law in the Netherlands and the monarchy’s potential role in obstructing justice.

What actions might ensure accountability and compliance with the UNCAT?

To ensure accountability and compliance with the UNCAT, Smedema suggests the following steps are crucial:

• Continued pressure from international organizations like the UN Human Rights Committee and the EU is vital.
• Pursuing legal action in international courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights, might offer a path to justice.
• Raising awareness within the Netherlands and internationally about your case and the Dutch government’s failure to uphold its UNCAT obligations is essential.
• Building a strong network of support from human rights organizations, legal experts, and individuals committed to exposing the truth and seeking justice for torture survivors is crucial.

While the sources primarily reflect Smedema’s perspective and lack independent verification, they raise serious questions about potential human rights violations and the need for transparency and accountability within the Dutch legal system.

Google NotebookLM Plus Insights,

based on the legal written Statements on this Blog and eBooks by Victim-Author:

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