← Terug naar het Hoofdarchief

Filed Official Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) Case!

Gepubliceerd: Sat, 29 Nov 2025 | Categorie/Type: post | Auteur: Hans Smedema

Filed Official Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) Case!

Here the 00_Cover_Letter_Submission

Subject: Individual Communication under Article 22 of the Convention against Torture

To: Petitions and Inquiries Section Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Office at Geneva 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland Submitted via Online Portal

Date: November 19, 2025

FROM: Ing. Hans Smedema B.Sc. BSN: 78xxxxx Address in your file. Email: hans.smedema@gmail.com

AGAINST: The Kingdom of the Netherlands

RE: SUBMISSION OF INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT & URGENT REQUEST FOR INTERIM MEASURES

Dear Secretariat,

I hereby submit a formal communication pursuant to Article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The communication alleges systemic violations by the Kingdom of the Netherlands of Articles 1, 12, 13, 14, and 16 of the Convention. Specifically, it details a decades-long campaign of obstruction of justice, "institutional gaslighting," and psychological torture designed to conceal foundational crimes committed by State actors.

URGENT: Request for Interim Measures I draw the Committee's attention to Section 8 of the attached communication. I formally request Interim Measures under Rule 114 of the Rules of Procedure to prevent irreparable harm due to my advanced age, forced exile, and the State's active foreclosure of all legal remedies.

Documentation Structure Due to the complex, historical nature of this case (spanning 1972-2025) and the strict character limits of the online registration form, the substantive details of my complaint are contained in Annex 11. The online form contains summaries which explicitly refer to this document.

Please find attached the following 13 Evidentiary Annexes which constitute the complete dossier:

I respectfully request that this communication be registered and transmitted to the State Party for a response on admissibility and merits.

Sincerely,

Ing. Hans Smedema B.Sc.

__________________________________

And here is the crucial:

Annex 11 - Detailed Factual Response to Questions 5 - 8

5. Facts.

Introduction to the Factual Basis of the Complaint

The facts of this case detail a calculated evolution of tactics by the State Party, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, specifically the Ministry of Justice, spanning more than half a century. The timeline is divided into two distinct but inextricably linked phases. Phase I (1972-2000) details the foundational crimes of abuse and torture, which provided the motive for the State's subsequent actions. Phase II (2000-Present) documents the institutionalization of a state-orchestrated cover-up and the campaign of systemic obstruction of justice.

Phase I: The Foundational Crimes and State-Level Impunity (1972-2000)

 

Phase II: Alleged State Obstruction and Cover-up (2000-Present)

This section documents the alleged ongoing campaign by state actors to conceal the foundational crimes, silence the complainant, and obstruct all paths to justice. The Court baselessly stated there were 'kennelijk geen sprake van strafbare feiten' ('apparently no criminal offenses') and, critically, explicitly stated that it decided "not to hear the complainant" or any of his named witnesses.

The Mechanism of Denial: The "Secret Curatele" and "Cordon Sanitair"

Remember that all hundreds of Posts about crimes on hanssmedema.info, legal complaints domestic and international, keeping all crucial information filed, had to be done without (!) any legal help. And that while suffering from untreated C-PTSD, and behind your back being treated like the village-idiot. People even warned others to stay away from me. On specific requests I can give more information easily in max a day. 

The absurd simple truth behind this all is when I met Joris Demmink in 1972, I warned him not to harm my mentally weak girlfriend. Being two Alfa-Male he secretly started to destroy the rest of my life by drugging, torture and even personality changing mutilating my brain through illegal Electroshock torture by a bribed professional traumatologist.

6. Please include information on steps you have taken to exhaust domestic remedies:

Domestic remedies have not been exhausted because they are unavailable, ineffective, and have been systematically and intentionally foreclosed by the State Party through a coordinated, multi-decade campaign of obstruction. The procedural requirement under Article 22(5)(b) of the Convention is therefore inapplicable as a matter of law.

The unavailability of remedies was actively "engineered" by the State Party through two primary mechanisms:

  1. Systemic Denial of Legal Representation: The most fundamental tool for accessing remedies—legal counsel—has been rendered unavailable. This is evidenced by the "cordon sanitair" (the systemic, universal refusal of hundreds of lawyers to provide assistance since 2004). This is plausibly explained by the "secret curatele" hypothesis, which would make it legally impossible for the complainant to retain counsel.
  2. Pre-emptive Financial Sabotage: The State Party "maliciously manufactured" the complainant's inability to seek remedies by orchestrating the 2003 coerced and fraudulent cancellation of his 'DAS Rechtsbijstand' legal insurance. This was a premeditated act to ensure he would be financially disarmed.
Every attempt by the complainant to engage with domestic authorities pro se has been met with an active blockade. The primary steps taken and their predetermined outcomes include:

Declaration of Exhaustion by Futility:

With this rejection, the complainant formally declares that he has ceased all further attempts to secure legal counsel within the Netherlands. He will not file a pro forma appeal to the Hof van Discipline, as doing so would be futile and constitute participation in the State’s stalling tactics.

Justification for Ceasing Domestic Remedies:

The "Catch-22" is Confirmed: The Dean's rejection confirms the circular trap: The Ministry refuses to investigate without "substantiated" claims, but the Bar Association refuses to appoint a lawyer to help substantiate those claims because they are not yet "substantiated". There is no exit from this loop within the domestic system.

Unreasonable Prolongation: The complainant has sought legal help for over 20 years (since 2004). Requiring a 77-year-old victim of torture to file yet another administrative appeal after two decades of rejection violates the "unreasonably prolonged" exception of UNCAT Article 22(5)(b).

The Article 12 Obligation: The State is attempting to shift the burden of its own treaty violation onto the victim. Under UNCAT Article 12, the State’s obligation to investigate is triggered by "reasonable grounds," not by the presence of a lawyer. The complainant asserts that the 50 years of evidence provided is sufficient to trigger this obligation. The State’s refusal to act ex officio is the violation; the lack of a lawyer is merely the excuse.

Conclusion: Domestic remedies are not just exhausted; they are proven to be structurally unavailable. The complainant submits this case to the Committee pro se.

These final refusals confirm the absolute and irreversible foreclosure of all domestic remedies. The evidence irrefutably demonstrates a complete and deliberate collapse of available domestic remedies, orchestrated by the State Party itself.

List of evidence annexes part 6:

  1. Annex 1 - Police not allowed to file charges
  2. Annex 2 - Art. 12 procedure refused
  3. Annex 3 - Ombudsman refusals 2005 and 2008
  4. Annex 4 - CTIVD official hearing April 29, 2008, BIZA advise Ombudsman
  5. Annex 5 - Ombudsman rejection Oct 24, 2025
  6. Annex 6 - Rejection Ministry of Justice arbitrage request (via State Counsel)
  7. Annex 7 - Rejection Ministry of Justice Formal "Notice of Liability" (Aansprakelijkstelling)
  8. Annex 8 - Hof van Discipline refusal Friesland
  9. Annex 9 - Hof van Discipline refusal Groningen
  10. Annex 10 - KLM refusal to answer on request for flight-log
  11. Annex 11 - Detailed Factual Response to Questions  5 - 8
  12. Annex 12 - Clinical Analysis of the Smedema-Jansma Psychological Dyad
  13. Annex 13 - Wiesverklaring
  14. Annex 14 - International Institutional Rejections

7. Claims

The facts and circumstances described constitute direct, flagrant, and ongoing violations of the State Party's most fundamental obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT).

Violation of Article 1 (Definition of Torture) and Article 16 (Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment)

The acts described meet all constituent elements of torture: (1) the intentional infliction of (2) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, (3) for purposes such as intimidation, coercion, and enforcing submission, (4) by or with the consent or acquiescence of public officials.

Physical and Chemical Torture: This includes the clandestine electroshock conditioning torture sessions conducted by Prof. Dr. Onno van der Hart (a state-bribed actor) and the decades-long secret administration of antipsychotics (Risperdal) and ketamine, often disguised as "baby aspirin," to achieve "chemical submission," mutilate brain function, and suppress memories.

Systemic Psychological Torture (The Ongoing Violation): The State Party's coordinated, decades-long campaign of "institutional gaslighting" constitutes an independent and ongoing act of psychological torture under Article 1 and/or CIDT under Article 16. This ongoing campaign, designed to conceal the foundational crimes and silence the complainant, has transformed into a perfected and institutionalized continuation of the initial abuse and constitutes a severe form of psychological warfare. By weaponizing state institutions (the judiciary, state-sponsored psychiatry) to procure official reports and tribunal rulings declaring the complainant "Delusional" and suffering from a "waanstoornis", the State is intentionally inflicting severe mental suffering. The clear purpose of this campaign is to destroy the complainant's credibility and sanity, intimidate him into silence, and thereby ensure impunity for the original crimes. This "weaponization of psychiatry" with a "retaliatory aim" and "intended to exert control" is a recognized form of inhuman treatment, as validated by the European Court of Human Rights' 2025 judgment in SPIVAK v. UKRAINE (Application no. 21180/15). 

The "Deep Research Report" solidifies the claim of psychological torture by defining the State's actions as verified "Institutional Gaslighting". By systematically ignoring the clinical evidence of C-PTSD and Structural Dissociation, and instead weaponizing a false diagnosis of "delusional disorder," the State created a "plausibility structure" of corruption. This was not merely a medical error but a calculated strategy to erode the victim's sense of reality and destroy his credibility. This constitutes severe mental suffering under Article 1, as it transforms the victim’s seek for truth into a pathology, effectively neutralizing his human rights through psychiatric labeling.

 

Violations of Article 12 (Failure to Investigate) & Article 13 (Denial of Right to Complain)

Article 12 of the Convention imposes a non-derogable obligation on the State Party to proceed to a "prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed".

The State Party has been aware of credible, detailed allegations of torture since at least 2000 and was formally presented with them in a detailed report in April 2004. The State Party's response has been a direct, flagrant, and continuous violation of Article 12. The evidence of this violation is definitive:

This continuous, 21-year refusal to launch any form of investigation simultaneously renders the complainant's right to complain under Article 13 completely illusory and violates Article 13 in toto.

III. Violation of Article 14 (Denial of Redress and Rehabilitation)

Article 14 guarantees the victim of torture an enforceable right to redress, including "fair and adequate compensation" and "the means for as full rehabilitation as possible".

By systematically blocking any and all pathways to an investigation (Art. 12) and a complaint (Art. 13), the State Party has deliberately foreclosed any possibility of redress, in total violation of Article 14. This denial of redress has resulted in catastrophic and quantifiable damages, including the loss of a successful career (valued at €145,000 per year), the costs of forced exile, and profound, clinically recognizable psychological trauma. An external legal assessment in 2009 by DOJ has provided a credible benchmark for these damages at US$50 million to US$100 million. In 2009 I agreed with American Judge Rex J. Ford and the DOJ to pay 50% of all damages to reward the huge costs and dilemmas the Netherlands has caused upon American officials and many others involved. This cooperation remains active; on October 21, 2025, Judge Ford explicitly instructed the complainant to elevate the matter by contacting Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, further validating the international scope and legitimacy of these claims."

In calculating the damages this should be taken into account.

There is a lot of collateral damage and ruined lives after this estimate by third parties in the Netherlands, Spain and America too. Inside the Dutch Ministry of Justice and other Ministries many honest people were also innocently fired or harassed.

Furthermore, as part of the right to "redress," the complainant claims the cost of a specific, non-monetary remedy of "Satisfaction" (per UNCAT General Comment No. 3), which the State has refused to provide. The State's psychological torture was the systematic destruction of the complainant's reputation via "institutional gaslighting". The only proportionate remedy is the restoration of that reputation through the "full and public disclosure of the truth".

Therefore, the complainant claims the quantifiable cost of €850,000 plus oversight by complainant, or 1 Million euro to independently commission a professional, feature-length investigative documentary to achieve this "Satisfaction" and "Guarantee of Non-Repetition," which the State is obligated under Article 14 to provide but has failed to do. A public documentary is essential to expose internationally the specific methods of psychological manipulation and absurd rare enforced submission used, thereby preventing other victims from falling into the same trap. Annex 10. 

 

8. Interim Measures.

Yes, the complainant formally and urgently requests that the Committee recommend interim measures under Rule 114 of its rules of procedure.

Justification for Urgent Request (Irreparable Harm)

Such measures are essential to prevent irreparable harm to the complainant. The ongoing risk is acute and demonstrated by the following factors:

The State's active continuation of this harm is proven by the Ministry of Justice's final rejection letters of February 4 and November 13, 2025 by its subsequent refusal to respond substantively to the formal Notice of Liability by the November 12, 2025 deadline. Justice delayed any further is justice denied in its most irreversible form.

Requested Measure 1: Cessation of Ongoing Violations and Obstruction of Justice

The complainant requests that the Committee call upon the State Party to take the following immediate measures to halt the irreparable harm of the ongoing obstruction:

III. Requested Measure 2: Immediate Establishment of a Legal Aid Fund

The complainant's primary and most urgent request is that the Committee recommend the State Party immediately establish a dedicated and sufficient legal aid fund.

  1. Restitution: At least €50,000 (plus inflation) as restitutio in integrum for the tortious and fraudulent 2003 cancellation of the complainant's 'DAS' legal insurance.
  2. Precedent: The €172,000 benchmark 2015 (237,000 in 2025) of state-paid legal costs in the related "Demmink affair," which provides an objective, state-verified standard for a case of this nature.

OFFICIAL EVIDENCE VAULT & LEGAL ARCHIVE
Protected under U.S. Federal Jurisdiction, UNCAT Proceedings & Constitutional Freedom of Speech.