Communicated on 3 September 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 61591/16
Ment Floor DIJKHUIZEN
against the Netherlands
lodged on 17 October 2016
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the following:
The applicant (a Netherlands national with business interests in Peru) was prosecuted for importing cocaine into the Netherlands from Peru, hidden in a consignment of canned vegetables. Released from detention on remand and given his passport back, he travelled to Peru; in his submission, to protect his legitimate business interests, though the Netherlands criminal courts later found it established that he was aware that his assets in Peru had been seized and he had taken the conscious risk that he might be arrested.
Be that as it may, it appears that he tried to return to the Netherlands to attend the trial hearing but was arrested on money-laundering charges while crossing the border into Ecuador to catch the aeroplane from there.
The applicant requested, through his counsel, that the Public Prosecution Service seek either his temporary handover for trial or his extradition from Peru. It would seem that the Public Prosecution Service refused on the ground that Peru was unlikely to accede to such a request while criminal proceedings in that country remained pending. Later, the applicant asked to participate by video link, but this was also refused on the ground that the applicant had earlier dismissed such a suggestion and his change of heart had occurred too late in the day.
The case resembles Hokkeling v. the Netherlands, no 30749/12, 14 February 2017, with the added twist that the applicant’s request to participate by video link from his prison in Peru was turned down apparently without having been given serious consideration.
QUESTION tO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant able to defend himself in person, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy