Last Updated 04/09/2025 published 04/09/2025 by Hans Smedema

The Hans Smedema Affair: A Comprehensive Study Guide

I. Overview of the Hans Smedema Affair

The Hans Smedema Affair describes a decades-long alleged campaign of human rights violations and systemic obstruction of justice within the Netherlands. The narrative asserts a deep-seated perversion of the legal system and state institutions, with origins tracing back to 1972 and continuing to the present day. Mr. Smedema claims to be a victim of a “Kafkaesque and Orwellian (Royal) conspiracy” involving high-ranking officials, including figures within the Ministry of Justice, intelligence services, and potentially the Dutch Royal Family. His allegations encompass torture, sexual abuse, forced infertility, brainwashing, and a systematic denial of legal representation and access to justice.

II. Key Allegations and Timeline

A. Core Allegations

• Abuse & Cover-up: Forced drugging, sexual abuse, rape of wife, illegal infertility of Smedema, creation of a “sex slave” and dissociative personality.
• Systemic Cover-up: A “horrific cover-up” or “Cordon Sanitaire” involving forbidding investigations, prosecutions, and forcing silence on involved parties.
• Denial of Access to Justice: Systematic refusal of legal aid, rejection of police reports, prohibition of judicial investigations, and rejections by international courts (ECHR, UNCAT) attributed to a lack of domestic legal assistance.
• Falsification of Evidence: Alleged falsified paternity tests, manipulated MRI scans, and coercion of medical professionals to falsify files and misinform.
• Discrediting of Victim: Intentional portrayal of Smedema as “schizophrenic” or “paranoid,” leading to incorrect diagnoses and treatments.
• High-Level Involvement: Alleged complicity of the Ministry of Justice, AIVD, MIVD, figures like Joris Demmink, and the Royal House (Queen Juliana, Beatrix, King Willem-Alexander).
• Suppression of Information: Ineffectiveness of the WOB (Government Information Act) leading to a “total information blackout” and forced media silence.

B. Crucial Chronology of Events

• 1963-1971: Early childhood abuse and hypnosis/trauma in Utrecht (1971) setting the stage for later control.
• 1972: Wies Jansma (Hans’s girlfriend) allegedly drugged and raped by Jan van Beek. Hans claims to have been made infertile. Family, Justice, and medical professionals allegedly decide on a “cover-up” due to Hans and Wies’s amnesia. Hans lured into signing a blank paper.
• February 23, 1973: Hans and Wies marry, allegedly under duress and unaware of the full conspiracy. Secret court case in Zwolle allegedly places Hans under Omerta/Government control, stripping his civil rights.
• 1974: Overval in ‘t Harde: Hans and Wies allegedly drugged and misused for videos/films by Jan van Beek. Police notified but remain silent.
• 1975: Attempted murder of Hans Smedema in Motel Bunnik, Zeist, via drugging. Hans’s house doctor, Hogen Esch, allegedly misleads Hans, and a hypnotherapy session with Prof. dr. Onno van der Hart leads Hans to sign a blank letter under influence.
• 1977-1978: Misuse of Wies and deception of Hans by Hans van der Heide. Alleged involvement of Jaap Duijs as a “sex-slave master” for Wies, paid by AIVD.
• 1983: CIA/FBI screening in Frankfurt reveals a large file on Hans, porn involvement, non-paternity of children, and alleged psychiatric treatment. The “Frankfurt Dossier” is created/discovered and later allegedly deleted by Dutch authorities. Al Rust, a US Military Intelligence officer, becomes aware of the case.
• 1987: Al Rust, after assisting Hans, is allegedly wrongfully dismissed and imprisoned, later winning damages using a copy of the “Frankfurt Dossier.”
• 1991: Wies allegedly raped in Oranje Hotel Leeuwarden. Managing prosecutor Ruud Rosingh allegedly forced to relocate after investigating the rape. Article on this incident is allegedly faked and removed from archives.
• 1998: Elise Boers (whistleblower) attempts to warn Hans about the conspiracy and that his children are not his.
• March 2000: Hans’s memory “suddenly comes back” through flashbacks. First attempt to file charges denied by police.
• 2003: Daughter allegedly confesses to falsifying DNA paternity tests. Antipsychotic medication (Risperdal) prescribed to Hans by psychiatrist Frank van Es, disguised as baby aspirin, leading to loss of income.
• 2004: Police detective Haye Bruinsma allegedly forbidden to file official reports. Hundreds of lawyers allegedly refuse Hans’s case due to state interference/security. Ombudsman refuses complaint. Balkenende Cabinet allegedly offers 5 million euro settlement with secrecy clause.
• 2005/2006: ECHR application “Verzoekschrift1-1” declared inadmissible as “manifestly ill-founded” and for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, attributed to lack of legal representation and state obstruction.
• 2008: CTIVD (Review Committee on Intelligence and Security Services) verbally confirms a “cover-up and conspiracy” and human rights violation, advising a re-submission to the Ombudsman. Subsequent written report by CTIVD allegedly differs, denying findings.
• 2009: Hans applies for political asylum in Miami, Florida (denied). Sentenced for libel in the Netherlands, without legal defense.
• 2010: UNCAT complaint rejected as “outside the scope of the relevant treaty,” also attributed to state obstruction. Hans alleges “brainwashing and torture” in Benidorm by Onno van der Hart.
• 2011: Further alleged “torture and conditioning” in Catral/Murla.
• 2013: Hans arrested in Amsterdam attempting to fly to Vancouver, detained in Ter Apel. Found guilty of defamation, detention later ruled unlawful.
• 2014: US Immigration Judge Rex J. Ford reopens Hans’s 2009 asylum case.
• June 29, 2015: Hans and Wies divorce by agreement.
• June 2015: King Willem-Alexander allegedly warned by President Obama about the Hans Smedema Affair.
• 2016: Hans detained in San Diego/Los Angeles for asylum application. Alleged “molestation and betrayal” by psychologist Janne Geraets in Spain.
• January 2017: President Obama’s administration allegedly files an official UNCAT complaint against the Netherlands.
• March 15, 2017: Asylum offer by Judge Rex J. Ford in the US allegedly blocked by King Willem-Alexander acting as KLM co-pilot. Hans subsequently detained for 15 months in the US and 14 months in the Netherlands.
• 2018: US President Trump withdraws America from UNHRC, potentially halting UNCAT case.
• March 2022: Anesthesiologist in Spain allegedly confirms Hans was secretly given antipsychotic medication disguised as “baby aspirin.”
• February 4, 2025: Minister David van Weel (Dutch Justice) responds to Hans’s request, advising him to contact a lawyer, despite documented denial of legal aid.
• March 17, 2025: Dutch Ministry of Justice responds to WOO request, stating “no existing documents found” regarding UNCAT/UNHRC case from Jan 2017.
• April 28, 2025: European Commission (DG Justice and Consumers) rejects Hans’s complaint, deeming it “not related to the implementation of European Union law” and an “internal matter.”
• July 22, 2025: Hans’s complaint registered with the European Ombudsman (Complaint No. 202502003).
• August 19, 2025: Dutch National Ombudsman again refuses Hans’s complaint, citing lack of authority, despite prior CTIVD advice.

III. Legal and Institutional Context

A. Dutch Legal Framework

• Article 120 Dutch Constitution: Prohibits judicial review of the constitutionality of parliamentary acts. Smedema claims this is misused as an “impenetrable shield” for criminal complicity based on manipulated information.
• Dutch Tort Law (“Onrechtmatige Daad”): Provides a basis for civil claims for wrongful acts. Relevant for allegations of state liability and damages.
• Defamation Law (Dutch Criminal Code Articles 261, 262): Smedema was convicted of “smaadschrift” (libel). He claims his statements were truthful disclosures and self-defense, protected under Article 261(3) if public interest required the allegation and he acted in good faith.
• Statute of Limitations: Generally five years for tort claims, but the “East Java torture cases” provide a precedent for setting it aside in cases of “extraordinary seriousness of crimes” and if the plaintiff was “de facto kept from access to justice for a long period.”
• “Kort Geding” (Summary Proceedings): A quick legal process for urgent matters requiring immediate injunction or remedy. Judgments are provisional, but can create pressure for settlement. Complexity of the Smedema case poses a challenge.
• Legal Aid System: Designed to provide state-financed legal aid for those of limited means. Smedema alleges systematic denial of this right, with lawyers “forbidden” to help him.
• National Ombudsman: An independent “High Council of State” to investigate government interaction with citizens. Mandate excludes direct challenges to court judgments. Smedema claims the Ombudsman’s procedural rigidity (refusing cases after judicial decisions) creates a “catch-22” when judicial avenues are systematically blocked.
• Rijksrecherche and Public Prosecution Service (OM): Law enforcement bodies responsible for investigating criminal conduct within the government and prosecuting cases. Smedema alleges they were “forbidden to investigate” his reports.

B. EU and International Legal Framework

• Article 2 TEU (Treaty on European Union): Establishes the Rule of Law as a foundational value of the EU. State capture is seen as a direct threat to this.
• Article 4(3) TEU: Principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and the Union.
• Article 7 TEU Procedure: A mechanism for suspending EU membership rights if a country “seriously and persistently breaches the principles on which the EU is founded.” A “last resort” procedure, rarely activated.
• Article 19 TEU: Requires Member States to ensure effective judicial protection in fields covered by Union law, including judicial independence.
• Article 47 CFR (Charter of Fundamental Rights): Guarantees the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial.
• Article 6 ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights): Protects the right to a fair trial, including access to court and legal assistance. The ECHR applies the “exhaustion of domestic remedies” principle, requiring applicants to pursue all avenues within their national system first.
• UNCAT (United Nations Convention Against Torture): Obliges State Parties to prevent torture and investigate allegations promptly and impartially. Smedema argues UNCAT rules place the burden of investigation on the state, not the victim.
• EU Whistleblowing Directive (2019/1937) and Dutch Whistleblower Protection Act: Mandate secure, confidential reporting channels and protection against retaliation. Allows direct external reporting.
• Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation: Allows suspension of EU funds to Member States violating Rule of Law principles affecting the EU budget.

IV. Involved Actors and Entities

• Hans Smedema: The alleged victim and petitioner, author of numerous documents detailing the conspiracy.
• Wietske (Wies) Smedema-Jansma: Hans’s former wife, alleged victim of rape, abuse, and mind control, leading to dissociative identity disorder (DID) and amnesia. Allegedly unknowingly part of the “Omerta Org.”
• Jan van Beek: Alleged primary perpetrator, landlord in Utrecht, accused of drugging, sexual abuse, and rape of Wies.
• Jaap Duijs: Alleged “sex-slave master” for Wies, AIVD agent, accused of mind control, rape, and obstruction of justice.
• Joris Demmink: Former Secretary-General of the Dutch Ministry of Justice, alleged “mastermind,” “mole,” and “top-level criminal,” accused of leading the cover-up, manipulating the justice system, and protecting perpetrators.
• Prof. dr. Onno van der Hart: Psychiatrist, allegedly involved in drugging, torture, brainwashing, and coercing Hans to sign documents. Referred to as “Onno the Devil” or “Dutch Mengele.”
• Prof. dr. Robert van den Bosch: Psychiatrist, allegedly involved in the conspiracy and bribed.
• Frank van Es: Psychiatrist, allegedly prescribed wrong antipsychotic medication (Risperdal disguised as baby aspirin) to Hans.
• Queen Juliana, Queen Beatrix, King Willem-Alexander: Allegedly involved in a “Royal Special Decree” to grant immunity and obstruct justice, or aware of the ongoing cover-up.
• Mr. Johan Smedema: Hans’s brother, alleged “Godfather” and leader of the “Omerta Org” within the family, accused of manipulating Hans and orchestrating the cover-up.
• Marinus Smedema: Hans’s brother, allegedly involved in financial disputes and part of the family cover-up.
• Klazien Hoekstra-Jansma and Betty Rijsmus-Jansma: Wies’s sisters, allegedly involved in destroying evidence and discrediting Hans.
• Al Rust: American CIA agent/Military Intelligence officer, friend of Hans, allegedly faced wrongful dismissal for assisting Hans and obtaining the “Frankfurt Dossier.”
• Ruud Rosingh: Managing prosecutor, allegedly forced to relocate by Ministry of Justice for investigating Wies’s rape.
• Haye Bruinsma: Police detective, allegedly forbidden by the Ministry of Justice from filing official reports.
• Jack Smedema: Hans’s nephew, Rijkspolitie officer, allegedly lost his position for trying to report Hans’s allegations.
• Ad Speksnijder and Bram Moszkowicz: Lawyers who allegedly tried to help Hans but were “not allowed” or faced obstruction.
• Paul Bremer: Former US Ambassador, allegedly involved in investigating Hans’s claims and advising him on asylum.
• Rex J. Ford: US Immigration Judge, allegedly confirmed aspects of Hans’s claims and offered asylum.
• David van Weel: Dutch Minister of Justice and Security, accused of dismissive responses and obstruction.
• Dutch Ministry of Justice (MoJ): Central to the alleged conspiracy, obstruction, and cover-up.
• AIVD/MIVD (Dutch Intelligence and Security Services): Allegedly involved in monitoring, evidence suppression, and protecting the Royal Family.
• CTIVD (Review Committee on Intelligence and Security Services): Independent oversight body, allegedly verbally confirmed cover-up but later provided a different written report.
• European Commission: Dismissed Hans’s complaint as “internal” and “not related to EU law.”
• European Ombudsman: Repeatedly refused Hans’s complaints citing lack of authority.
• ECHR (European Court of Human Rights): Declared Hans’s 2005/2006 application inadmissible.
• UNCAT (UN Committee Against Torture) / UNHRC (UN Human Rights Committee): International bodies where Hans has filed complaints, alleging Dutch state’s refusal to investigate torture.

V. Key Concepts and Themes

• State Capture: Systemic political corruption influencing decision-making across state institutions, with high-level figures allegedly operating above the law.
• Omerta Organization (KCOM): A secret, criminal organization allegedly within the Ministry of Justice, led by figures like Joris Demmink and Hans’s brother Johan, responsible for orchestrating the cover-up.
• Institutional Gaslighting & Chronic Invalidation: State actions denying factual events, refusing to investigate, and labeling the victim “delusional,” eroding their sense of reality.
• Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD): Clinical framework for chronic trauma inflicted by trusted entities, explaining the victim’s symptoms.
• Amnesia & Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID): Central to Wies’s condition and the cover-up, where memory loss and personality shifts are exploited to prevent her from remembering or reporting abuse.
• Royal Special Decree: An alleged secret decree by Queen Juliana granting immunity to perpetrators, presented as the ultimate shield against prosecution.
• Obstruction of Justice: The core violation, encompassing deliberate actions by state actors to prevent investigations, deny legal aid, manipulate evidence, and suppress information.
• Denial of Effective Remedy and Fair Trial: Systematic blocking of legal avenues, making it impossible for victims to seek justice domestically.
• Mutual Trust (EU): Fundamental principle of EU judicial cooperation, undermined by systemic corruption and breaches of the rule of law within a Member State.
• Whistleblower Protection: The challenges faced by whistleblowers (like Elise Boers and those in the Demmink case) in revealing state misconduct and the lack of effective protection.

VI. Quiz

Instructions: Answer each question in 2-3 sentences.

1. What is the “Royal Special Decree” and what is its alleged purpose in the Hans Smedema Affair?
2. Explain the concept of “institutional gaslighting” as it relates to Hans Smedema’s experiences.
3. How does the “exhaustion of domestic remedies” principle apply to Hans Smedema’s ECHR application, and what was the outcome?
4. Identify two specific instances where Hans Smedema alleges that evidence was manipulated or suppressed by state actors.
5. What is the significance of the “Frankfurt Dossier” in supporting Hans Smedema’s claims?
6. Describe the alleged role of psychiatrists like Prof. dr. Onno van der Hart in the Hans Smedema Affair.
7. How did the Dutch National Ombudsman respond to Hans Smedema’s complaints, and what procedural limitation was often cited?
8. Explain why the “East Java torture cases” are considered a relevant precedent for Hans Smedema’s legal claims regarding the statute of limitations.
9. What is the primary reason the European Commission refused to intervene in Hans Smedema’s case, and why does Smedema argue against this reasoning?
10. Identify two individuals, other than Hans or Wies Smedema, who allegedly suffered “collateral damage” as a result of the ongoing conspiracy.

VII. Quiz Answer Key

1. The “Royal Special Decree” is an alleged secret decree, purportedly issued by Queen Juliana around 1972/73 and upheld by subsequent monarchs. Its alleged purpose is to grant immunity to perpetrators involved in crimes against Hans Smedema and his wife, shielding them from prosecution and placing them above the law.
2. Institutional gaslighting refers to actions by the state, such as denying factual events, refusing investigations, and labeling Hans Smedema “delusional.” This psychological manipulation aims to erode his sense of reality and self-worth, making his complex narrative appear irrational while it is a direct response to a deeply abusive reality.
3. The “exhaustion of domestic remedies” principle requires applicants to pursue all legal avenues within their national system before applying to the ECHR. Hans Smedema’s 2005/2006 ECHR application was declared inadmissible for non-compliance with this rule and for being “manifestly ill-founded,” attributed to the alleged denial of legal representation and state obstruction preventing him from effectively using domestic remedies.
4. Two instances include the alleged falsification of DNA paternity tests by his children and family, and the alleged manipulation of MRI scans to hide a scar related to forced infertility. Additionally, the “Frankfurt Dossier” was allegedly erased, and key police files related to rape investigations were purportedly deleted or withheld.
5. The “Frankfurt Dossier” is a crucial intelligence file from 1983 that allegedly contained incriminating information about Hans Smedema, including his amnesia, non-paternity of children, and involvement in porn. Its existence and later alleged deletion, along with its use by Al Rust to win a court case, is presented as strong corroboration of the conspiracy and state involvement.
6. Psychiatrists like Prof. dr. Onno van der Hart are accused of actively participating in the conspiracy by drugging, brainwashing, and torturing Hans Smedema. He allegedly coerced Hans into signing documents under influence to suppress memories and prevent him from discovering the truth.
7. The Dutch National Ombudsman repeatedly refused Hans Smedema’s complaints, citing a lack of authority or competence to investigate “a matter like this” or to act “after the judge has decided.” This procedural rigidity created a “catch-22” situation, as Smedema claims judicial avenues were systematically blocked by the state.
8. The “East Java torture cases” established a precedent where the statute of limitations could be set aside due to the “extraordinary seriousness of the crimes” and if the plaintiff was “de facto kept from access to justice for a long period of time.” This aligns with Smedema’s claims of decades-long state obstruction and denial of legal representation.
9. The European Commission refused to intervene because it deemed the matter “not related to the implementation of European Union law” and an “internal problem” of the Netherlands. Smedema argues this contradicts the definition of “State Capture” as systemic corruption affecting a state’s capacity to uphold EU law and human rights.
10. Two individuals who allegedly suffered collateral damage are Al Rust, an American CIA agent who was wrongfully dismissed and imprisoned for helping Hans, and Ruud Rosingh, a managing prosecutor who was allegedly forced to relocate after investigating Wies’s rape. Jack Smedema, Hans’s nephew, also reportedly lost his police position.

VIII. Essay Questions

1. Analyze how the alleged “State Capture” in the Netherlands, as described by Hans Smedema, systematically undermines core EU values and legal principles, specifically focusing on the Rule of Law and mutual trust within the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ).
2. Discuss the interplay between Hans Smedema’s allegations of systemic institutional gaslighting and chronic invalidation and the clinical framework of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD). How do these psychological concepts provide a “direct and rational response to a deeply irrational and abusive reality” in his case?
3. Evaluate the challenges faced by Hans Smedema in accessing an “effective remedy” and a “fair trial” through both domestic (Dutch) and international (ECHR, UNCAT) legal mechanisms. To what extent does the alleged state obstruction create a “Kafkaesque trap” and systematically negate the principles of justice?
4. Examine the roles of various key actors, including the Royal House, Joris Demmink, and specific medical and legal professionals, in the alleged multi-layered conspiracy against Hans and Wies Smedema. How do their alleged actions contribute to the “chilling shield of impunity” and the perpetuation of the abuses?
5. Propose a strategic legal and advocacy approach for Hans Smedema to pursue redress, considering the complexities of his case, the alleged state obstruction, and the limitations of existing mechanisms. Which specific EU or international avenues might be most effective, and what evidentiary strategies would be crucial to overcome past denials?

IX. Glossary of Key Terms

• AIVD (Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst): The Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service. Allegedly involved in the Smedema affair to suppress evidence and protect the Royal Family.
• Amnesia: Memory loss, often due to trauma. Central to the Smedema narrative, where both Hans and Wies allegedly suffered from selective amnesia.
• Article 7 TEU Procedure: A European Union mechanism that allows for the possibility of suspending an EU Member State’s voting rights if it seriously and persistently breaches the foundational values of the Union, such as the Rule of Law.
• C-PTSD (Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder): A diagnosis for chronic, long-term trauma inflicted by trusted entities, often characterized by relationship problems, emotional dysregulation, and a pervasive sense of powerlessness.
• Cordon Sanitaire: A term used in the Smedema affair to describe the alleged systematic isolation and suppression of information around Hans Smedema and his wife, preventing access to justice and support.
• CTIVD (Commissie van Toezicht op de Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdiensten): The Review Committee on the Intelligence and Security Services, an independent Dutch oversight body. Allegedly verbally confirmed a “cover-up and conspiracy” in the Smedema case.
• Defamation (Smaad/Smaadschrift/Laster): Legal terms in Dutch criminal law referring to harming a person’s honor or reputation through spoken (smaad) or written (smaadschrift) allegations. “Laster” implies the offender knows the statement is false.
• DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder): A mental health condition characterized by the presence of two or more distinct personality states (also referred to as an “extra emotional personality” in the sources). Allegedly developed by Wies Smedema-Jansma due to trauma.
• Doofpotaffaire: A Dutch term meaning a “cover-up affair” or “whitewash,” used extensively in the Smedema narrative to describe the alleged state-orchestrated concealment of crimes.
• ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights): An international treaty to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Individuals can lodge complaints with the European Court of Human Rights if they believe their rights under the Convention have been violated.
• Effective Remedy and Fair Trial: Fundamental human rights guaranteed by Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 6 of the ECHR, ensuring access to justice and impartial proceedings.
• Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies: A principle in international human rights law requiring individuals to have pursued all available legal avenues within their own country before taking their case to an international court or body.
• Frankfurt Dossier: An alleged 30+ page Dutch intelligence file from 1983, discovered by US Military Intelligence, containing incriminating information about Hans and Wies Smedema. It was allegedly deleted by the Dutch but a copy was later used by Al Rust to win a court case.
• Gaslighting (Institutional): A form of psychological manipulation in which a person or entity causes someone to question their own sanity, perception of reality, or memories. In the Smedema case, attributed to state actions.
• “Kort Geding”: Dutch summary civil proceedings designed for urgent matters requiring a swift, provisional legal decision.
• Landsadvocaat: The “nation’s attorney” in the Netherlands, a law firm (Pels Rijcken) with a unique position as the State’s legal counsel, obligated never to act against the State.
• Maladministration: Poor or improper management of public affairs, particularly by government or public bodies. The Dutch National Ombudsman investigates such cases.
• MIVD (Militaire Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst): The Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service. Implicated in the Smedema affair.
• Mutual Trust (EU): A foundational principle of judicial cooperation within the EU, implying that Member States generally trust the quality and integrity of each other’s legal systems. Alleged to be eroded by systemic corruption.
• Omerta Organization (KCOM – Koninklijke Criminele Organisatie Mengele): A term coined by Hans Smedema to refer to the alleged secret criminal organization within the Ministry of Justice, led by his brother Johan Smedema and Joris Demmink, orchestrating the cover-up.
• Onrechtmatige Daad: Dutch legal term for a “wrongful act” or “tort,” providing grounds for civil liability and damages.
• PIF Directive (Directive (EU) 2017/1371): The EU Directive on the protection of the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law. Member States are obliged to combat fraud against the EU budget.
• Rijksrecherche: The Dutch National Criminal Investigation Department, responsible for investigating criminal conduct by government officials.
• Royal Special Decree (KB): See “Royal Special Decree.”
• Rule of Law: A fundamental principle of governance in which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. A core EU value.
• Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation: An EU mechanism allowing the suspension of EU funds to Member States that violate Rule of Law principles affecting the EU budget.
• Secretary-General (SG): A high-ranking administrative official, often the most senior non-political civil servant in a government ministry. Joris Demmink held this position in the Dutch Ministry of Justice.
• State Capture: A form of systemic political corruption where private interests significantly influence a state’s decision-making processes, policies, and institutions for their own benefit.
• Statute of Limitations: A law that sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated.
• TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union): One of the two primary treaties forming the constitutional basis of the European Union.
• Torture (UNCAT definition): Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for purposes such as obtaining information, punishment, intimidation, or discrimination, when such pain is inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official or someone acting in an official capacity.
• UNCAT (United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment): An international human rights treaty that aims to prevent torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment around the world.
• UNHRC (UN Human Rights Committee): A body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by its State parties.
• WOB (Wet Openbaarheid van Bestuur): The Dutch Government Information Act, aiming for transparency in government. Smedema claims it has been rendered ineffective in his case.

Google NotebookLM Plus Insights,

based on the legal-written-statements on this Blog and e-books by victim Author:

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