Defense against extradition by EAW!

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Defense against extradition by EAW of victim Hans Smedema from Spain to Netherlands!Degradation_alfred_dreyfus

See Wikipedia European Arrest Warrant for details.

This can only be done based on violations of Human Rights!

Human Rights refusal of European Arrest Warrant

Article 3 of the Framework Decision which lists grounds upon which executing states must refuse to surrender a requested person does not expressly include any ground for refusing the surrender of a requested person if that surrender would infringe a person’s human rights. However recitals (12) and (13) of the preamble and Article 1(3) do refer to human rights:

Recital (12)
“This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Chapter VI thereof. Nothing in this Framework Decision may be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to surrender a person for whom a European arrest warrant has been issued when there are reasons to believe, on the basis of objective elements, that the said arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on the grounds of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.
This Framework Decision does not prevent a Member State from applying its constitutional rules relating to due process, freedom of association, freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media.”
Recital (13)
“No person should be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 1(3)
“This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.”

In 2006, 20 of the then 25 member states included text which was based on at least one of these provisions or which explicitly referred to the European Convention on Human Rights, in their domestic implementing legislation. The others took the view that the rights exist independently from the Framework Decision.

Fair Trials International (FTI), the London-based human rights non-governmental organisation, claims to have highlighted a number of cases which demonstrate that the European Arrest Warrant system is causing serious injustice and jeopardizing the right to a fair trial. In particular, FTI allege that:

  • European Arrest Warrants have been issued many years after the alleged offence was committed.
  • Once warrants have been issued there is no effective way of removing them, even after extradition has been refused.
  • They have been used to send people to another EU member state to serve a prison sentence resulting from an unfair trial.
  • Warrants have been used to force a person to face trial when the charges are based on evidence obtained by police brutality.
  • Sometimes people surrendered under an Arrest Warrant have to spend months or even years in detention before they can appear in court to establish their innocence.[17]

Defense items

Hans Smedema as a criminal!
Hans as a criminal during the new years eve party!

See Post Human rights violations and Post Human rights violations 2

  • Discrimination because Hans Smedema was denied any information about the crimes against him and not allowed to officially file charges, and any investigation was denied by the Dutch government and Queen! See Page 5.1 International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights!
  • Recital (12) of Human rights in case of EAW: refusal to surrender a person for whom a European arrest warrant has been issued when there are reasons to believe, on the basis of objective elements, that the said arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on the grounds of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons. 
  • Recital (13) of Human rights in case of EAW: “No person should be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
  • This Framework Decision does not prevent a Member State from applying its constitutional rules relating to due process, freedom of association, freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media.”

Based on this Spain could and should refuse to extradite me, Hans Smedema to the Netherlands! The trial in the Netherlands was NOT a fair trial because NO defense was allowed!

But the Dutch state and Ministry of Justice could also use my accusations of treason and high treason against the involvement of the Queen as a new libel case, which would make refusal more difficult!

European Convention on Human Rights

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter).

Article 6 reads as follows.

1.In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2.Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3.Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

This gruesome crime is worse then the famous Dreyfus case from France and looks like the now famous Russian Sergei Magnitsky case!

More later…

Hans Smedema B. Sc., in exile, Xalo – Jalon, Spain