Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
 
Questions asked by Members of  Parlaiment and the answers given by the Goverment.

566

Questions from MP De Wit (Socialist Party) to the Minister of Justice, on the subject of the possible extradition of a dutch anti-globalist. (submitted 2nd of December).

1.
Are you planning to extradite Maarten Blok, the Dutch alternative-globalisation 
activist who is suspected of simple assault of an officer during the EU Summit 
in Sweden? ¹

2.
Is it true that for another suspect (possibly several suspects) a transfer of 
criminal prosecution was requested, such that it is very likely that not all of 
the suspects requested by Sweden will be extradited by the Netherlands? If so, 
why this exception?

3.
How do you square the following arguments with the argument that it is practical 
to try Maarten Blok in Sweden since the facts took place there:
- He is a citizen of the Netherlands and the Netherlands is responsible for his 
well-being, as is formulated, among other places in the European Convention on 
Human Rights;
- Not a single other country has extradited suspects to Sweden in connection 
with the incidents in Gothenburg;
- Amnesty International has reported that the Swedish police used excessive 
force against demonstrators, and the Swedish courts imposed unusually severe 
punishments on them, including solitary confinement and insufficient access to 
legal representation ²
- Sweden has admitted that it has manipulated the evidence to the disadvantage 
of the demonstrators by dubbing in inflammatory chants;
- The evidence, including exonerating videos and statements by the Swedish 
police about Maarten Blok, is available in the Netherlands.

4.
Are you of the opinion that the trial in Sweden will be fair and in accordance 
with the standards of the Netherlands? If so, how do you respond to the above 
arguments? If not, are you prepared to make use of the Treaty on Transfer of 
Criminal Prosecution so that Maarten Blok can be tried in the Netherlands?

¹) Het Parool, November 25, 2003
²) Amnesty International Yearly Reports 2001 and 2002

 

1. 
Yes, the Amsterdam court did declare the extradition permissible on August 
26, 2003, and the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the requested person on 
November 18, 2003. Moreover, the conditions under which a Dutch subject can be 
extradited have been fully satisfied, since Sweden has guaranteed that the 
requested person would be allowed to serve any penal detention in the 
Netherlands once this penalty is translated by the Dutch judge.
In order to keep the length of time spent in Sweden as short as possible, I will 
ask the Swedish authorities to communicate the court date to me, and I will 
extradite the requested person shortly before this date.

2.
 It is correct that Sweden has asked the Netherlands to assume the prosecution 
of another Dutch demonstrator during the European Union Summit, because that 
demonstrator is suspected of committing a serious offence against public order.
As far as Mr Blok, Sweden directed a request for his extradition to the 
Netherlands because he is suspected of more serious offences, namely offenced 
not only against public order but also against the lives or health of persons 
and against the functioning of society (violently attacking someone who is 
exercising authority).

3 and 4. 
The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights 
and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and only extradites Dutch citizens to countries 
where the exercise of the rights enshrined in this treaty is respected. Since 
Sweden is a party to (among others) the ECHR it must be assumed that Sweden will 
honour the fundamental legal principles established in this Convention, such as 
the right to a fair trial. In this case it has not appeared to me that Mr Blok, 
upon his extraditon to Sweden, will be in actual danger of being subjected to 
inhumane or humiliating treatment or punishment.
To the extent that it is correct that no other country has extradited suspects 
to Sweden, I do not see cause to deny Mr Blok's extradition. The sole 
circumstance that no other extraditions have taken place in this matter 
nevertheless does not detract from the permissibility of extradition in this case.
In addition I should like to remind you that, aside from the fact that any 
communication from Sweden concerning manipulation of the case against Mr Blok is 
not in my files, the requesting state is not obliged by the applicable treaties 
to supply the evidence on which the suspicion of the requested person is based. 
A qualitative evaluation of that evidence is in any case to be carried out by 
the requesting state and not by the state receiving the request. Moreover, Mr 
Blok can make an appeal to possible inconsistencies in the evidence in the 
presence of the Swedish judge. In light of the treaty obligation above, there is 
justifiable faith that the Swedish authorities will take these objections seriously.
I am furthermore of the opinion that the principle of good service to justice is 
not violated by the prosecution of the requested person in Sweden. In addition, 
I consider it to be of importance that the consequences of the requested 
person's actions made an impact on Sweden such that the Swedish legal order was 
shocked. The fact that (part of) the evidence is located in the Netherlands is 
no reason to accord any less importance to a trial in Sweden. Moreover, most of 
the evidence is located in Sweden, since the evidence supplied to the 
Netherlands concerning the previously-mentioned transfer of prosecution of 
another Dutch demonstrator is only partly relevant to this case. In light of 
this and in response to your fourth question, I am not willing to deny the 
extradition, nor to communicate to Sweden that I will only be amenable to a 
transfer of the prosecution.

Dutch document  (pdf)