← Terug naar het Hoofdarchief

OFFICIAL INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATION UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR)

Gepubliceerd: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 | Categorie/Type: post | Auteur: Hans Smedema

OFFICIAL INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATION UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR)

 

Explanation on why and how this was possible see my Post:

Procedural Compatibility and Strategic Efficacy of a Triangulated UN Complaint Matrix in the Hans Smedema Affair

Rejected next day June 10, 2026

Main reasons:
  1. Marking NO instead of YES when asked if Exhausting of all remedies
  2. My case has become so complex and huge that normal gatekeeper Lawyers are not able to comprehend it quickly enough and give too many reasons to reject.
  3. It should have been a much more simplified case only.
  4. Also the chance of it becoming too much the same as the two active UNCAT cases is high and therefore an ICCPR case will not be filed again.
  5. Why did Gemini not see this earlier? Asking the right prompts is still crucial!

It was filed electronically under WUR/34291 on June 9, 2026!

To: The Human Rights Committee

c/o: Petitions and Inquiries Section

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

 

SECTION 1: Information Concerning the Complainant (Victim)

 

SECTION 2: Information Concerning the Representative

The Complainant represents himself pro se due to an absolute, state-enforced cordon sanitaire and a clandestine administrative guardianship ("Secret Curatele") engineered by the State Party to systematically deny him the right to counsel.  

SECTION 5: Summary of the Main Facts

Procedural Context Note (Substantive Partitioning)

The historical acts of physical and chemical trauma detailed in this section are presented strictly as the foundational background context that precipitated the State Party’s subsequent administrative cover-up, institutional erasure, and ongoing denial of civil and political rights. These historical atrocities are currently subject to separate, parallel adjudication under the Convention Against Torture (Case WUR/25656 against the Netherlands and ID WUR33438 against Spain). They are adduced herein solely to establish the motive, scope, and continuous nature of the civil and political violations under Articles 9, 14, 16, and 17 of this Covenant.

 

5.1 Foundational Background Context (1972–2000)

The foundational violations in the "Hans Smedema Affair" were executed by state actors and protected by administrative fiat to ensure permanent immunity for high-profile individuals:
  1. Drugging and Exploitation (1972): The Complainant and his spouse were subjected to unconsented chemical submission and exploitation. Primary perpetrators included Joris Demmink (who subsequently rose to become the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice), operating under state-protected operational anonymity. This historical violation serves as the direct motive for the state's subsequent 50-year campaign to systematically deny the Complainant a fair hearing.
  2. Forced Surgical Intervention: The Complainant was subjected to non-consensual surgical mutilation, which the state has spent decades administratively concealing. On January 19, 2006, urologist Dr. S. Smorenburg objectively documented a 7cm surgical scar and a complete, non-medical "interruption of both vas deferens in an unusual location" (Annex 11).
  3. The 1973 Royal Special Decree: Executive-level immunity was formalized via a clandestine decree issued by Queen Juliana. This decree explicitly ordered the Ministry of Justice to permanently suppress all criminal investigations into the 1972 atrocities to safeguard "state security" and crown immunity, initiating the ongoing denial of the Complainant's legal personhood (Annex 4).
  4. Clandestine Psychological Conditioning: To enforce rigid memory repression and maintain the cover-up, the Complainant was subjected to periodic electroshock "re-conditioning" sessions administered by state-bribed medical professionals, including Prof. Dr. Onno van der Hart (Annex 12).
  5. Forced Transfer of Prosecutors (1991): On January 12, 1991, Managing Prosecutor Ruud Rosingh attempted to open a legitimate criminal investigation into these operations. He was immediately and forcibly transferred by the Ministry of Justice to Zwolle to terminate his probe, proving an executive pattern of sabotaging access to justice.
 

5.2 The Institutional Cover-Up and Sabotage of Evidence (2000–Present)

Following the breakdown of the Complainant’s trauma-induced amnesia in March 2000, the State Party deployed a coordinated administrative campaign to neutralize his legal standing, destroy his reputation, and conceal the truth:
  1. The Police Blockade (April 2004): On April 26, 2004, the Complainant attempted to file a comprehensive criminal report with Detective Haye Bruinsma of the Drachten police. Detective Bruinsma refused to record an official police report (proces-verbaal), explicitly admitting on audio recording (Annex 1, 15) that he was strictly forbidden from doing so by a direct instruction from the Ministry of Justice. This administrative blockade effectively locked the Complainant out of the domestic legal system, violating his rights under Article 14.
  2. State-Sponsored Medical Fraud (2006): To preserve the state’s narrative that the Complainant suffered from a "delusional disorder," the 82MB digital file of his MRI scan from Diagnostisch Centrum DiaSana (May 17, 2006) was altered or substituted with a body double to digitally scrub the physical evidence of his unconsented sterilization, violating his privacy rights and right to truth (Annex 11).
  3. The "Frankfurt Dossier" Intelligence Discovery: In 1983, US Military Intelligence Officer Al Rust discovered a highly classified 30+ page Dutch intelligence file (the "Frankfurt Dossier") documenting the Royal cover-up. Officer Rust’s findings were later validated in a US military court, where he secured a major settlement based on the authenticity of the Dutch state conspiracy.
  4. External Judicial Validation (2009): In 2009, US Federal Immigration Judge Rex J. Ford—following a comprehensive 7-month FBI/CIA background investigation—formally ruled that the Complainant’s narrative of state-level persecution was entirely credible, establishing five separate grounds for political asylum (Annex 10, 14).
  5. Transnational Chemical Subjugation (2022): On March 24, 2022, clinical testing at Hospital Marina Baixa (Alicante, Spain) revealed that daily medication distributed to the Complainant as standard "100mg baby aspirin" was, in reality, the powerful antipsychotic drug Risperdal, covertly substituted to maintain him in a chemically submissive state. This cross-border intervention represents an ongoing, arbitrary interference with his liberty under Article 9 and privacy under Article 17.
 

5.3 Temporal Jurisdiction and Jurisdictional Anchors

While the foundational events began historically, they represent a "Continuous Violation" because they result in an ongoing, active status of "civil death" and administrative erasure that violates the treaty to this day. Furthermore, this communication is temporally anchored in fresh domestic decisions that reset the five-year submission window under HRC guidelines: the February 2025 Ministry of Justice arbitration rejection, the October 2025 National Ombudsman final rejection, the November 2025 Ministry of Justice final liability denial, and the late 2025 Dean I. Aardoom-Fuchs counsel refusal.

 

5.4 Previous International Rejections Do Not Invoke Res Judicata

Prior administrative dismissals under Article 5, paragraph 2(a) of the Optional Protocol were induced by the State Party’s fraudulent concealment of the police blockade and the spoliation of files:  

5.5 Procedural Note on Substantive Partitioning

This communication is part of a deliberate, triangulated international legal strategy designed to prevent jurisdictional fragmentation. While the Complainant has parallel communications addressing territorial acts of physical and chemical abuse under the narrow material scope of the Convention Against Torture (UNCAT Cases WUR/25656 against the Netherlands and ID WUR33438 against Spain), this ICCPR petition strictly carves out separate, non-duplicative civil and political claims. The Human Rights Committee is uniquely requested to adjudicate the ongoing State Capture, the institutional execution of "Civil Death" (burgerlijke dood), the universal denial of counsel via an engineered cordon sanitaire, and cross-border surveillance. These represent civil and political rights violations under Articles 9, 14, 16, and 17 of the Covenant that fall entirely outside the substantive investigative mandate of the Committee Against Torture (Annex 14).

 

5.6  Procedural and Strategic Compatibility Matrix (UN Complaint Strategy for Hans Smedema) 

An expert forensic and procedural analysis demonstrating the legal segregation between the complainant's pending UNCAT cases (WUR/25656 and ID WUR33438) and this ICCPR petition. This document establishes compliance with the tripartite identity test, outlines the application of the "Continuous Violation" doctrine to overcome ratione temporis barriers, and details the contemporary 2025–2026 jurisdictional anchors that satisfy Article 5, paragraph 2(b) regarding the objective futility of domestic remedies due to an engineered legal blockade. (Annex 19)

 

SECTION 6: Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies and Temporal Admissibility

The requirement to exhaust domestic remedies is explicitly waived pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 2(b) of the Optional Protocol because all domestic avenues of redress are structurally non-existent, ineffective, and have been deliberately dismantled by the State Party.

 

6.1 The "Bruinsma Blockade" and Estoppel (Nemo Auditur)

By forbidding Police Detective Haye Bruinsma from creating an official proces-verbaal (the mandatory legal prerequisite for any Dutch criminal or compensatory proceeding), the Ministry of Justice engineered a permanent procedural block (Annex 1, 15). Under the legal principle nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans (estoppel), the State Party cannot claim that the Complainant failed to exhaust remedies or lacked "objective evidence" when the state itself actively blocked and compromised the legal machinery required to generate that evidence.

 

6.2 Total Judicial and Administrative Foreclosure (2005–2025)

The Complainant's 21-year campaign for justice demonstrates an extreme, unreasonable prolongation of remedies:  

SECTION 7: Substantive Claims and ICCPR Violations

The actions of the Kingdom of the Netherlands constitute a continuous, coordinated violation of the substantive civil and political provisions of the Covenant:

 

7.1 Violations of Article 16 (Right to Recognition as a Person Before the Law)

The State Party has resurrected the pre-modern doctrine of Civil Death (burgerlijke dood). By superimposing a "Secret Curatele" (clandestine guardianship) via executive protocols stemming from the 1973 Royal Decree, the state has effectively extinguished the Complainant’s legal existence. He is treated as an administrative non-entity, rendered incapable of performing valid civil acts, executing police reports, or protecting his rights. This systematic stripping of legal capacity represents a direct, ongoing breach of Article 16.

 

7.2 Violations of Article 14(1) and Article 2(3) (Access to Justice and Effective Remedy)

The state’s non-derogable duty to provide an effective domestic remedy and access to a fair hearing has been actively sabotaged:  

7.3 Violations of Article 17 (Right to Privacy, Honor, and Reputation) and Article 9

 

7.4 Resolution of the Diagnostic Stalemate via the Theory of Structural Dissociation

The State Party’s defense relies entirely on his spouse’s handwritten annotations ("NOOIT GEBEURD") to label the Complainant insane. Under the Theory of Structural Dissociation (TSD), these denials are clinical markers of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) induced by the 1972 chemical trauma (Annex 12, 13). She acts as an Apparently Normal Personality (ANP) phobic of and amnesic toward the trauma held by her Emotional Part (EP). This is forensically confirmed by the "Onno van der Hart Paradox": it is statistically impossible for a genuinely delusional person to randomly select a perpetrator (Prof. van der Hart) who happens to be the global co-creator of the exact academic theory that explains his wife’s specific trauma-induced amnesia. The weaponization of this clinical condition to deny the Complainant legal standing is an ongoing violation of Article 16.

 

SECTION 8: Urgent Request for Interim Measures (Rule 114)

Pursuant to Rule 114 of the Human Rights Committee’s Rules of Procedure, the Complainant requests immediate Interim Measures to prevent irreparable physical, neurological, financial, and civil harm during the adjudication of this matter:
  1. Cessation of Surveillance and Intimidation: The Committee must order the State Party to immediately halt all cross-border electronic and physical surveillance, as well as psychological pressure executed against the Complainant on Spanish territory (Annex 10).
  2. Evidence Preservation Injunction: The State Party must be ordered to secure, unseal, and declassify all relevant records to prevent their spoliation, specifically the "June 1, 2015 State Visit Briefing Notes" and the 30+ page "Frankfurt Dossier" discovered by US Officer Al Rust (Annex 4).
  3. The "Stichting" Legal Aid Solution: Because the "Secret Curatele" blocks the Complainant from contracting a lawyer or accessing standard legal aid, the Committee must mandate that the State Party facilitate the establishment of the Stichting Smedema Redress. Paying an advance for legal defense into an "ownerless," independent foundation bypasses the domestic legal embargo, restoring his right to a fair hearing (Annex 8, 9).
  4. Indexed Financial Advance to Mitigate Extreme Hardship: The Committee must order the State Party to facilitate an immediate indexed advance payment of €7.5 million against the State's outstanding liabilities. This sum represents the €5 million compensation package originally approved by the Balkenende Cabinet in 2003 and explicitly confirmed by Minister Cees Veerman in 2004, adjusted to current economic value (Annex 16). Because the Complainant’s state-engineered administrative embargo remains active, the total lack of resources inflicts continuous, irreparable financial and psychological pressure, rendering this advance critically necessary to mitigate extreme, life-threatening hardship and secure basic livelihood protections.
 

SECTION 9: Procedural Note on Substantive Partitioning

This communication is part of a deliberate, triangulated international legal strategy designed to prevent jurisdictional fragmentation. While the Complainant has parallel communications addressing territorial acts of physical and chemical abuse under the narrow material scope of the Convention Against Torture (UNCAT Cases WUR/25656 against the Netherlands and ID WUR33438 against Spain), this ICCPR petition strictly carves out separate, non-duplicative civil and political claims. The Human Rights Committee is uniquely requested to adjudicate the ongoing State Capture, the institutional execution of "Civil Death" (burgerlijke dood), the universal denial of counsel via an engineered cordon sanitaire, and cross-border surveillance. These represent civil and political rights violations under Articles 9, 14, 16, and 17 of the Covenant that fall entirely outside the substantive investigative mandate of the Committee Against Torture (Annex 14).

 

SECTION 10: Compendium of Evidentiary Annexes

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