INTCCPR424242.pdf - Communication No. 903/2000, Van Hulst...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 12 pages.

The preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 12 pages.
- 1 -Communication No. 903/2000,Van Hulst v. The Netherlands(Views adopted on 1 November 2004, eighty-second session)*Submitted by:Antonius Cornelis Van Hulst(represented by counsel, Mr.Taru Spronken)Alleged victim:The authorState party:The NetherlandsDate of communication:8 April 1998 (initial submission)The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights,Meetingon 1 November 2004,Having concludedits consideration of communication No. 903/1999, submitted to theHuman Rights Committee on behalf of Antonius Cornelis Van Hulst under the Optional Protocolto the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,Having taken into accountall written information made available to it by the author ofthe communication, and the State party,Adoptsthe following:Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol1.1The author of the communication is Antonius Cornelis Van Hulst, a Dutch citizen.He claims to be a victim of violations by the Netherlands1of articles 14 and 17 of the Covenant.He is represented by counsel.1.2A similar communication, based on the same facts, was submitted on 7 September 1998by Mr. A.T.M.M., also claiming to be a victim of a violation by the Netherlands of article 17 ofthe Covenant.Mr. A.T.M.M. did not pursue his claim subsequently and, despite a reminder, didnot inform the Committee whether he wished to maintain his communication.*The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the presentcommunication:Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Mr. Nisuke Ando, Mr. Franco Depasquale,Mr. Walter Kälin, Mr. Ahmed Tawfik Khalil, Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah, Mr. Rafael Rivas Posada,Sir Nigel Rodley, Mr. Martin Scheinin, Mr. Ivan Shearer, Mr. Hipólito Solari Yrigoyen,Ms. Ruth Wedgwood, Mr. Roman Wieruszewski and Mr. Maxwell Yalden.
- 2 -The facts as submitted by the author2.1During a preliminary inquiry against Mr.A.T.M.M., the author’s lawyer, telephoneconversations between A.T.M.M. and the author were intercepted and recorded.On the basis ofthe information obtained by this operation, a preliminary inquiry was opened against the authorhimself, and the interception of his own telephone line was authorized.2.2By judgement of 4 September 1990, the District Court of ‘s-Hertogenbosch convicted theauthor of participation in a criminal organization, persistent acquisition of property withoutintent to pay, fraud and attempted fraud, extortion, forgery and handling stolen goods, andsentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.2.3During the criminal proceedings, counsel for the author contended that the publicprosecutor’s case should not be admitted, because the prosecution’s case contained a number ofreports on telephone calls between the author and his lawyer, A.T.M.M, which it was unlawful toreceive in evidence.Counsel argued that, in accordance with article 125h,2paragraph 2, read inconjunction with section 218,3of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the evidence obtainedunlawfully should have been discarded.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 12 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
SyedKhaledImran
Tags
Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture