Human Rights Committee Complaint Against the Netherlands
March 11, 1996

Reception of this complaint was never acknowledged, nor is any information about its disposition available.

76 Market Street, Apt. D5
Perth Amboy, NJ 08861-4445
United States of America
11 March, 1996

Human Rights Committee
c/o Center For Human Rights
United Nations Office at Geneva
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

Dear Human Rights Committee:

This communication is submitted for consideration under the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It's issues mesh with those of two other complaints: one directed 31 October, 1991 to the Committee Against Torture, as extended and updated via my correspondence of 10 March, 1996, the other a human rights complaint against Denmark submitted to your Committee 4 November, 1991, updated by way of my communication of 9 March, 1996 to your office.

I am James Henry Graf, a citizen of the United States of America, born 21 March, 1942 at Christ Hospital in Jersey City, New Jersey, USA. I am a former Speech and Hearing Therapist, now disabled. My present address is as follows:

James H. Graf
76 Market Street, Apartment D5
Perth Amboy, New Jersey 08861-4445
United States of America
Telephone 1-908-324-7467

All correspondence may be sent to me personally at this address.

I am submitting this communication as victim of the violations set forth below. I make accusation against the Netherlands, a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocol.

I include in this complaint actions taken by the government of Belgium, on the presumption that the close cooperation of that State in a loose confederation with the Netherlands and Luxembourg mandates observance by Belgium of all international human rights agreements entered into by its partners. I maintain that if a Belgian official can deny an asylum seeker, in perpetuum, the right to enter Luxembourg or the Netherlands, then that government should also be held to the same human rights standards that bind those States. I maintain and charge, furthermore, that the Dutch Government was complicit in the abuses perpetrated by the Belgians. 

I hereby accuse the Netherlands of violating Articles 2, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I accuse the Netherlands and Belgium, moreover, of conspiring to violate Articles 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, and 26 of the Covenant, while I was within the territory of Belgium and subject to its jurisdiction. Inasmuch as I have submitted a communication, dated 10 March, 1996, to the Committee Against Torture containing charges against the Netherlands and Belgium, I make no claim here with respect to violations of Article 7 of the Covenant committed by those States.

In my appearance before the Dutch Court on 16 December, 1992 in appeal of the Ministry of Justice's negative asylum decision, I raised the issue of human rights violations by the Netherlands, but no action was ever taken in response to my allegations, nor was any remedy provided. Because of the relentless program of harassment, persecution, endangerment, and mental torture inflicted upon me by American agents during the last days of my residency at Bethanie Refugee Center in Rijsbergen, Holland, I did not enjoy sufficient peace of mind to prepare an itinerary or file a second appeal regarding my refugee status. Before I could do so, I was involuntarily repatriated.

It appears that no domestic remedies are now available to me. My letter of 15 January, 1996 to the Netherlands Embassy resulted in the attached response, in which a consular officer stated that his office did not possess the expertise to respond substantively. My letter to Mrs. C.H.A. Huisman, the attorney who represented me before the Dutch Court, has not yet prompted a response, nor has my letter of 19 January, 1996 to the Embassy of Belgium.

The letters to the Dutch and Belgian Embassies provide information regarding the substance of my complaint. Briefly, it may be summarized as follows:

As reported originally in my complaint before the Committee Against Torture, dated 31 October, 1991, the Netherlands discriminated against me that year on the basis of my national origin and coerced me into withdrawing my application for asylum. After accepting said application on or about 3 September 1991, Dutch authorities withheld from me all the social services normally provided to refugees, citing my nationality as the reason: "We have good relations with your government, and we don't wish to do anything to jeopardize them." They told me that I would not be sent to a refugee reception facility and would not be provided with housing, food, or medical care. They refused to help me obtain the medication that I needed to control my hypertension, even though I expressed willingness to pay for it. I had no choice but to withdraw my application for political asylum on or about 4 September, 1991. Before returning to me my valid American passport, Dutch authorities required me to sign a paper stating that I had not been coerced. Of course, I had most certainly been coerced. I was given seven days to leave the country, even though an American passport normally entitles one to a three-month automatic visa in the Netherlands. Thus, having discriminated against me on the basis of my national origin, the Dutch then apparently discriminated on the basis of my status as an asylum-seeker.

On the night of 12 September, 1991, I travelled by train from Amsterdam to Copenhagen, Denmark. The Danish Government likewise violated my rights, and eventually involuntarily repatriated me on 19 December, 1991. The Dutch Government may have deliberately conspired with Danish officials to withhold from me the two trunks containing my documentation, winter clothing, and other personal effects (see my communications to your office dated 4 November, 1991 and 9 March, 1996).

I returned to the Netherlands 18-19 October, 1992 (Martinair Flight 602). American agents in Amsterdam were waiting for me with a program of harassment that included the theft on 22 October, 1992 of a briefcase containing, among other documents, all the papers I had planned to submit to the Dutch Ministry of Justice in support of my asylum request. When I appeared at the Amsterdam Police Headquarters to report the theft, I heard Dutch police officers laughing about the CIA. I believe, and now charge, that the Dutch Government knew all about the theft and other illegal acts, but took no action, finding the whole affair rather amusing.

My briefcase, with a few items missing, was eventually returned to me, but not until after my interview with the Ministry of Justice, for which I was without legal representation and nearly bereft of documentation.

Mrs. Huisman, the attorney who represented me in my appeal on 16 December, 1992 before the Court in Den Bosch, appears to have performed her duties with sincerity and efficiency, but yielded eventually to a grossly unfair system in the face of which she apparently felt helpless and frustrated. After the Court rejected my appeal (see the attached documents), she met with me on 25 January, 1993. She stated that my nationality was "the problem." When I vigorously protested that the decision was discriminatory, she became impatient with me, terminated our interview, and had no further contact with me after that.

In my final week at Bethanie Refugee Camp, I found myself distracted by a shocking crime being committed in the camp by "refugees" who were apparently American agents. At least two young girls, probably mind control victims, were being used as prostitutes, performing oral sex on command. I had seen one of them, known as Jalilah, at Sandholm Refugee Camp in Denmark the year before, and also in Elizabeth, New Jersey, USA that summer. The man presenting himself as her father had lived one floor above me on West Grand Street in Elizabeth, while Jalilah was also living somewhere in the neighborhood. I reported to camp officials that Jalilah and her "sister" were being abused and exploited sexually. This may have precipitated my forced repatriation from the Netherlands on 1 February, 1993. Camp officials had told me in October "We don't do that here."

I returned to Amsterdam on 4 February and declared to the airport immigration officials that I had been illegally repatriated and that I was re-applying for refugee status. After a night in the secure airport holding facility, I was informed on 5 February, 1993 that the original decision by the Ministry of Justice would stand, and that, my valid American passport notwithstanding, Dutch officials would not allow me entry into the country.

In lieu of repatriation, I was allowed to use my remaining money to fly to Brussels, Belgium (I later realized that this was an option considered previously on 1 February by Dutch and American agents). Assaulted, apparently, with top-secret electromagnetic equipment, I developed, on arrival at Brussels Airport, severe cardiac arrythmias. I was taken to Van Helmont Hospital in Vilvoorde, where, from the beginning, doctors seem to have regarded me as a psychiatric patient. The psychotropic medications they gave me actually aggravated my symptoms.

On 15 February, 1993, I left the hospital to pursue my asylum application at the Little Castle Refugee Reception Center in Brussels. After a harrowing night at the center (please refer to my letter dated 19 January, 1996 to the Belgian Embassy), and a perfunctory interview by Belgian authorities, my asylum application was denied. I was to leave Belgium by 22 February, 1993. The decision, it was explained to me, forbade me ever again to enter Belgium, the Netherlands, or Luxembourg. This decision, and the one originally handed down by the Dutch Ministry of Justice in November, 1992, have disappeared from among my records.

Too sick to stay at the Little Castle pending appeal of the decision, I begged to be sent back to the hospital. This was arranged. I remained a patient at the hospital until October, when hospital personnel handed me over to the police as an illegal alien. I was imprisoned and repatriated. My letter to the Embassy of Belgium provides further details. Let me add, however, that no one contacted me at the hospital about filing an appeal, nor did anyone assist me in applying for a visa.

I was, throughout, nothing but a puppet on a string, confined in a hospital, and later in a prison, without the strength, connections, or resources necessary to determine my own future, thoroughly disabled and disempowered by American, Dutch, and Belgian agents and their governments.

It appears that, in covering up the sex scandal in Rijsbergen, Dutch and Belgian authorities may have spread malicious gossip to the effect that I, allegedly a psychiatric patient, was somehow responsible, possibly a perpetrator. In fact, I broke no law in Holland, threatened no-one, endangered no-one, assaulted no-one, exploited no- one, molested no-one. I was, as always, the whistleblower, the informer, the complainant, the victim -- the sane, upright, decent, law-abiding advocate for human rights and human dignity.

I therefore allege the following violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Article 2

The Netherlands and Belgium failed to ensure to me the rights recognized in the Covenant without distinction of any kind, allowing distinctions such as national origin, refugee status, physical disability, and falsely presumed mental disability to bias their opinions. Advised of rights violations taking place within their borders, these nations failed to provide effective remedies.

Article 9

I charge that my eight-month hospitalization and eventual imprisonment and coerced repatriation from Belgium was an intentional deprivation of personal liberty -- unlawful detention -- planned and perpetrated by American, Dutch, and Belgian officials. It was a natural extension of the sadistic cat-and-mouse game that had twice before subjected me to persecution, arbitrary rejection, and forced repatriation.

Article 10

As related in my letter to the Embassy of Belgium dated 19 January, 1996, prison staff at Leuven, Belgium in October, 1993 failed to treat me with humanity and to respect my inherent dignity as a human person.

Article 12

My coerced repatriations from the Netherlands on 1 February, 1993 and from Belgium on or about 30 October, 1993 constituted deliberate interference with my right to leave my own country. I had made it very clear in 1991, 1992, and 1993 that I wanted to escape from the United States of America, but the nations from whom I sought refuge decided otherwise. Now I am too sick and too poor even to try again. Thanks to the Netherlands and Belgium, I am trapped in the land of my torturers, where no recourse or remedy is available to me, where there is no realistic possibility of rescue, peace, or justice.

Article 13

When I arrived at Schiphol Airport on 4 February, 1993, I presented a valid American passport. I was lawfully in the territory of the Netherlands. Previous asylum decisions notwithstanding, I should not have been barred from the country. I was not allowed to appeal this decision, nor had I the benefit of legal representation.

In Belgium, I had no access to the appeal process because of disability. I should have been provided with legal representation for the purpose of filing and processing an appeal. Confined, as I was, to a hospital, I should have had access to an advocate who could have helped me examine my options and plan my itinerary. The possibility of my remaining in Europe was never even considered by the hospital's social workers.

Article 14

I charge that, by reason of discrimination on the basis of my national origin, I did not enjoy the equality before the Dutch Court mandated by this Article. Though I do not have the benefit of word-for-word translation (please refer to my letter of 15 January, 1996 to the Netherlands Embassy), I maintain that the resulting decision is grossly unfair and discriminatory. I make the same charge with respect to the Belgian decision of 16 February, 1993, my copy of which, as noted earlier, has been stolen.

Article 17

In collusion with American agents, Dutch and Belgian authorities, as mentioned above, appear to have spread malicious gossip, unlawfully attacking my honor and reputation. The spurious psychiatric diagnosis that apparently originated at Van Helmont Hospital (see the attached note from the prison doctor at Leuven) is likewise an entirely unwarranted attack on my honor and reputation. Under the circumstances, I have no recourse under the laws of the Netherlands or Belgium.

Article 19

While waiting at Schiphol Airport for the flight to Brussels on 5 February, 1993, I placed a phone call to my former wife's house in the USA, leaving a message on her answering machine. When I attempted to place two more calls, however, they would not go through. My right to seek and impart information was obstructed by Dutch authorities or by the American National Security Agency.

Article 26

I was egregiously denied the equal protection of Dutch and Belgian laws. Agents of the United States were free to harass me with impunity. In the Netherlands, this even took the form of menacing and threats. I made it clear that American agents were harassing me (the Court Decision of 18 January, 1993 acknowledges the issue), but nothing was ever done to put an end to the crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice. The same is true of my claims regarding electromagnetic mental torture. In these matters, I was obviously discriminated against on the basis of my national origin and my status as an asylum-seeker, and, as well, on the basis of falsely presumed mental disabilities.

Please recognize and process this complaint. I can provide further details and documentation. Please contact me directly at this address.

Yours truly,
(original signed)
James H. Graf

Selected Documents and Links

Home Page