Statement by the Government of the Netherlands

Transcription

1 Statement by the Government of the Netherlands Issued on the occasion of the referral to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs H.RES.62: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of State should seek to amend Article 22 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice to move the seat of the Court from the Netherlands. Reintroduced by Rep. Christopher H. Smith, Feb Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of State should seek to amend Article 22 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice to move the seat of the Court from the Netherlands. This year we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Peace Palace, situated in the Netherlands and home to the International Court of Justice, which was built with funds from a donation made by Andrew Carnegie. Whereas according to the International Labor Organization, nearly 21,000,000 men, women, and children are enslaved in human trafficking worldwide at any given time, including 4,500,000 in sexual exploitation; Whereas the majority of trafficking victims are enslaved in countries with laws in statute prohibiting human trafficking; Whereas the rule of law, or fair implementation of the law over all to whom the law applies, is essential to securing justice for victims of human trafficking; Whereas no government official should be above application of and adherence to the rule of law, including laws prohibiting human trafficking; Whereas government officials who benefit from or otherwise participate in human trafficking are obstacles to rescuing victims and prosecuting traffickers pursuant to the law;

2 The Netherlands takes the fight against human trafficking very seriously. The Netherlands is one of the few countries that has an independent and influential National Rapporteur for Human Trafficking. For more than 12 years, the person who holds this position has made recommendations to the Minister of Security and Justice and Parliament, and does not shy away from criticizing when necessary. The Netherlands has a multi-shareholder Task Force on human trafficking that for years now has improved cooperation between state and non-state actors in the fight against human trafficking. The Minister of Security and Justice has doubled the police capacity designated to fight against child pornography, and has installed a Task Force on the subject of violence against children, including sexual violence. The total designated capacity of the Dutch police force and the Dutch offices of the Public Prosecutor is in relative and absolute terms higher than, for example, the New York State, which is much larger in terms of geography and has 2.5 million more people than the Netherlands. Quote from the TIP report 2012: The Government of the Netherlands fully complies with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. The government continued to employ a multi-disciplinary approach to its anti-trafficking efforts, which resulted in the detection of more trafficking victims, increased investigation of forced labor, and an overall increase in the conviction of trafficking offenders. Quote from the TIP report 2012: The government continued to demonstrate strong anti-trafficking leadership by transparently reporting and publishing self-critical, public reports on its anti-trafficking efforts. Whereas Joris Demmink, the Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice in the Netherlands from 2002 to 2012 and the Director General for International Affairs and Immigration in the Netherlands from 1993 to 2002, has been accused by Mr. Osman of rape in Edirne, Turkey, in or about 1997 when Mr. Osman was 14 years old; Whereas Mr. Demmink, has been accused by Mr. Mustafa of rape in Istanbul, Turkey, in or about 1995, when Mr. Mustafa was 12 or 13 years old; Whereas Mr. Demmink has been accused by Mr. Yasin of rape in Bodrum, Turkey, in or about 1995, when Mr. Yasin was an adolescent; The first complaint against Joris Demmink on conduct that allegedly took place in Turkey in the mid-1990s was filed in 2007 by two lawyers on behalf of a Turkish criminal sentenced to life imprisonment in the Netherlands. After an investigation in full accordance with the Dutch Penal Code and the Code of Penal Procedure, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service concluded in 2008 that the complaint contained no facts or

3 circumstances that constituted a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense. Therefore, the complaint did not lead to criminal prosecution. The Court of Appeals upheld the 2008 decision not to prosecute. Subsequently, Mr. Osman and Mr. Mustafa have filed complaints in To date, Mr. Yasin has not filed any complaint against Mr. Demmink. His supposed accusations are hearsay, obtained through a third party. Whereas Necdet Menzir, Chief of the Istanbul Police Department in the 1990s and former Minister of Transport, affirms that Mr. Demmink visited Turkey numerous times between 1995 and 2000 using a variety of aliases on official and private visits to conduct research on his work responsibilities related to Turkey; Whereas Officer Mehmet Korkmaz, a Turkish police officer in Istanbul from 1995 to 1997, has stated that he was responsible for Mr. Demmink's security on three of Mr. Demmink's alleged visits, and that he brought Mustafa, at that time a street child, as well as other children to Mr. Demmink for Mr. Demmink to sexually abuse; Whereas Turkish security officer Huseyin Celebi reported to Chief of the General Staff; the Chief of Police, the Attorney- General of the Supreme Council and the Ministry of Justice in Turkey in January 2007 that Mr. Demmink visited Turkey every year between 1995 and 2003, using aliases and attempting to hide his presence in Turkey; Whereas a participant at the March 1998 K4 Committee meeting in Ankara, Turkey, has come forward to affirm that Mr. Demmink was also present at the meeting in Turkey in 1998; Whereas a participant at the July 1996 INTERPOL meeting in Antalya, Turkey, has come forward to affirm that Mr. Demmink was also present at the meeting in Turkey in 1996; Whereas Mr. Demmink has officially denied ever visiting Turkey in the 1990s; Whereas Mr. Demmink's travel records from 1997 to 2000 were allegedly destroyed, according to the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Directorate-General for Immigration Affairs; Mr. Demmink asserts that he was not in Turkey at the time of the alleged offenses. In fact, at no time after 1986 has he been in Turkey. In a preliminary fact-finding investigation, the possible travel motives of Mr. Demmink in Turkey during this period were checked. This investigation delivered no confirmation whatsoever that the official was in Turkey at this time. The National Police Internal Investigations Department (NPIVD) questioned 17 witnesses besides the official

4 himself, and looked at the business trips and passports in relation to the period in question. The Public Prosecutor has only learned from hearsay that a participant at the March 1998 K4 Committee meeting in Ankara, Turkey, and a participant at the July 1996 INTERPOL meeting in Antalya, Turkey, could declare that Mr. Demmink was present during the meetings. Nonetheless, the Public Prosecution Service has requested the minutes and the list of participants of the INTERPOL congress held in Turkey in Mr. Demmink s name appears in none of the documents. It has also been established which European officials participated in the March 1998 K4 Committee meeting in Ankara, Turkey. Mr. Demmink was not one of them. Moreover, his role in that Committee had ended on June 30, 1997, more than nine months before the meeting took place. Whereas in an October 3, 2012, letter from the Minister of Security and Justice, I.W. Opstelten, to the House of Representatives of the States General of the Netherlands, Opstelten indicates that the Netherlands has repeatedly decided against a formal investigation into the allegations against Mr. Demmink; As is customary, the complaint in Mr. Osman s case was presented to the Dutch National Expert Group on Unusual Sex Crimes. In the middle of 2011, this group drew the conclusion that the complaint was not bona fide. There were grave discrepancies between several of Mr. Osman s statements. Mr. Osman was not able to provide the kind of details that you would expect even after the time that had expired. Moreover, his statements seemed fabricated. In view of the nature of the facts reported and the seriousness of the accusations, the National Police Internal Investigations Department nevertheless carried out an exploratory investigation into the facts, in which persons were interviewed and possible travel movements of the person concerned in the indicated period in Turkey were investigated. Investigators found no new information that justified further inquiry. Whereas without the authority of a formal investigation, the prosecutors lack powers for adequate research or travel to Turkey to interview victims and witnesses; In cases where there is not a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, a preliminary fact-finding investigation can be launched. Open sources can then be consulted, people can be questioned, and third parties can be asked to make documents available voluntarily. As long as there is no reasonable suspicion, no use can be made of powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as the power to requisition information, and no requests can be made for judicial assistance from authorities abroad.

5 As soon as there is a reasonable suspicion as understood in Section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, criminal justice powers can be invoked to make seizures and searches, and for the requisitioning of information. Requests can also be made for judicial assistance. In this specific case, the results of the preliminary fact-finding investigation did not reveal a basis for a criminal investigation. The Public Prosecution Service believes that it cannot reasonably be expected that it will initiate a criminal investigation or prosecute persons on the basis of non-substantiated rumors and allegations, all the more so because these allegations and rumors originate from an unknown report and secret notes whose contents or origin cannot be verified by the Public Prosecution Service, nor how they have come about or whether they actually exist. The Public Prosecution Service points out that it can only ask the Turkish authorities for legal assistance if there are facts and circumstances that give rise to a reasonable suspicion of guilt of a criminal offence. These facts and circumstances have not become plausible. Whereas the Netherlands has not interviewed alleged victims Mr. Mustafa and Mr. Yasin; Whereas the Netherlands dismissed the statement of Mr. Osman without explanation or opportunity for the alleged victim to clarify his statement; Whereas the Netherlands has not interviewed any of the five additional government or former government witnesses; As is customary in such cases, the charge was submitted to the national expertise group for special vice cases (Landelijke Expertisegroep Bijzondere Zedenzaken, or LEBZ). The LEBZ concluded in a report of June 2011 that the evidence of the person who had brought the charges was inconsistent and lacked detail. According to the LEBZ, the charge could not be regarded as reliable. Mr. Osman has been notified about the reason for dismissing his statements and has been offered a chance to have them explained to him or his attorney in person. Neither of them took the Public Prosecutor up on the offer. There were reasonable doubts about the reliability of the charge filed in 2011; nevertheless, the NPIVD waited several months for Mr. Mustafa to come forward as well and make a statement about a similar incident. He eventually declined, although he had been offered to travel to the Netherlands at the expense of the Dutch authorities three times. Other information provided by the lawyers to the Public Prosecution Service, such as information about a Turkish journalist who was going to make statements to the Public Prosecution Office but allegedly was arrested before his departure to the Netherlands, could not be confirmed either.

6 Whereas Mr. Mustafa and Mr. Osman have reported threats against their lives and safety and that of their families in Turkey; Whereas Mr. Mustafa and Mr. Osman have gone into hiding in order to protect their safety while they seek redress through the justice systems of the Netherlands and Turkey; Whereas Mr. Osman was reportedly beaten and suffered broken facial bones after leaving an attorney's office in Turkey in November 2012; Whereas journalist Burhan Kazmali, who researched and reported on the alleged victim s story, was reportedly knocked unconscious on the street in Yalova, Turkey, in December 2012, after he refused to disclose Mr. Mustafa s address; To the extent these persons were threatened in Turkey, it would seem appropriate that they turn to the Turkish authorities. Whereas Mr. Demmink's position as the Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice from 2002 to 2012, during the time the alleged victims have been pursuing an investigation and criminal charges in the Dutch courts creates a heightened duty for the Netherlands to thoroughly investigate the charges and avoid the appearance that Mr. Demmink is above the rule of law or is otherwise obstructing justice by virtue of his position; In respect to the rumors and allegations regarding this official that have circulated over the years, subsequent Ministers of Justice have always taken the view that the nature of the position calls for alertness on the part of the incumbent. What needed to be investigated was investigated. The outcome has consistently indicated that there is no shred of accuracy in the rumors and allegations. As is customary for positions of trust, such as Director-General and Secretary-General, investigations are carried out by the General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) with some regularity to determine the existence of any circumstances that could lead to the objection to certain persons holding such positions. An AIVD investigation is ideally equipped to look into any allegations. The AIVD investigation has repeatedly led to the issue of a No Objection Certificate. Whereas the United States Department of State Trafficking in Persons Report for 2012 indicates that, although the law in the Netherlands prescribes maximum sentences ranging from 8 to 18 years imprisonment for individuals convicted of human trafficking, convicted. traffickers on average receive a sentence of less than two years in jail, and typically serve little more than 1 year of the sentence in jail;

7 Quote from the TIP report 2012: The Government of the Netherlands fully complies with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. The government continued to employ a multi-disciplinary approach to its anti-trafficking efforts, which resulted in the detection of more trafficking victims, increased investigation of forced labor, and an overall increase in the conviction of trafficking offenders. Quote from the TIP report 2012: The government continued to demonstrate strong anti-trafficking leadership by transparently reporting and publishing self-critical, public reports on its anti-trafficking efforts. Whereas the Dutch State Secretary of Justice, Fred Teeven, a lead prosecutor in a child sex trafficking investigation in 1998 which implicated high-ranking representatives of the Dutch government, stated under oath in a closed court hearing in the District Court of the Hague in the case of Paul H./OM (09/ ) that the 1998 child sex trafficking investigation was blocked and that it has never led to the prosecution of the suspects because of certain contra-actions; The Minister also indicated in this letter that the official was not mentioned at all in an investigation by the National Police Internal Investigations Department in the late 1990s (the Rolodex investigation). Whereas the international community in 1946 designated The Hague, Netherlands, as the seat of the International Court of Justice; Whereas the International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations to promote the rule of law between nations; Whereas the inexplicable refusal of the Netherlands to formally investigate the serious allegations against the former Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice, Mr. Demmink, brings into question the rule of law in the Netherlands; and Whereas the credibility of the International Court of Justice is undermined by its current location in The Hague, Netherlands: Now, therefore, be it 1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the Secretary of State should take the appropriate steps in the United Nations to amend Article 22 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice to move the seat of the court from the Netherlands to a more appropriate venue. Regarding the Netherlands inexplicable refusal to investigate: A complaint was filed in 2007 against then Secretary-General of the Ministry of Security and Justice in the Netherlands on conduct that allegedly took place in Turkey in the mid-1990s. After an investigation in full accordance with the Dutch Penal Code and the Code of Penal Procedure, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service

8 concluded in 2008 that the complaint contained no facts or circumstances that constituted a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense. Therefore, the complaint did not lead to criminal prosecution. In 2010, a similar complaint was filed. In February 2012, the Public Prosecution Service again concluded there was no cause to institute a criminal investigation. The Court of Appeals upheld the 2008 decision not to prosecute. The complainants and alleged victims have appealed the Feb decision of the Public Prosecutor not to prosecute on Oct. 24, These appeals are pending.