letter Hirsh ballin (Minister ) about P V E
translation via Google
i don't know if they are happy with this 
Ministry of Justice
Directorate-General for Justice and Law Enforcement
Department of Legal Affairs and Operations
When answering the
Date and our characteristic
. Would you just
a matter in your letter
treat.
The Standing Committee for Justice has asked me for a few more questions to answer with
regarding my letter to your Chamber d.d. February 14, 2008, which includes answering
Earlier questions from the standing committee about Mr VdE as a result of publicity surrounding the
Holloway case.
About these questions, I am now informed by the College of Procurators-General. Partly
on the basis of this information, I can your Chamber the following messages. Here, I notice that I
questions from the members of the groups so far this same point addressing jointly
answered.
The remark in my letter of February 14 last to your Chamber that, having regard to the confidential
nature of the relevant information and in order to protect the privacy of
concerned, not in detail but only on broad outlines of what could go with Mr. VdE is
commented, prompts the members of the VVD group to ask whether the interests of
publicity and Mr V.d.E. they have been served. The members of the VVD group refer
this to the fact that Mr V.d.E. in the media under his full personal details published
and also to the sustained attention wereldbreed for the disappearance of Natalee
Holloway.
First, I note that the fact that concerned itself and other personal details
personal information widely known, does not absolve me as a governing body of the duty to
hence in my reporting to the outside world carefully and reluctant to go. In addition
Postal address: PO Box 20301, 2500 EH Den Haag
The President of the Lower House
of Representatives
PO Box 20018
2500 EA Den Haag
Visiting
Schedeldoekshaven 100
2511 EX Den Haag
Phone (070) 3 70 79 11
Fax (070) 3 70 79 00
Strand Strategic and Legal Affairs
Date 29 april 2008
Our reference 5541088/08
Your feature JUST080144
The questions follow the Subject of VKC for Justice on mr. V.d.E.
2 / 6
5541088/08 / 29 april 2007
that what applies between Mr V.d.E. and the Criminal Intelligence Unit (CIE) of the
regiopolitiekorps-central Gelderland has been discussed, as CIE information, a confidential
character. Finally, since the criminal investigation into the Holloway case is not one
Dutch research but an investigation led by the Aruban public
Ministry and the matter is, to my knowledge, still not been brought clarity, I think additional
reluctance to respect when making announcements regarding this
business. These aspects, respecting the privacy of Mr VdE,
confidentiality of the information and the fact that this is still an ongoing
research, against the interests of openness mean that I believe that,
as in my letter of February 14 last , it only outlines can be
addressed.
In my letter of February 14 last I have written your Chamber that Mr V.d.E. in autumn
2007 has had contact with the regiopolitie-central Gelderland and that he no concrete
Information about the Holloway case has provided, but has indicated that Mr. VdS
opposite him perhaps might start talking about this case and his involvement.
I have your informed that the Court by Mr. VdE to his possible involvement
with the investigation condition was contrary to the Dutch policies and regulations
this matter and for that reason has been decided on the possibility of any cooperation
with him not to go, what to Mr VdE is communicated.
The members of the CDA group is asked why under the existing
regulation, such as Article 126h of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Sv) is not decided
to Mr V.d.E. burgerinfiltrant as to promote the investigation into Mr. VdS Furthermore
be asked whether cooperation with Mr. V.d.E. would have had contact with the Dutch
regulation or policy, and if so, why.
The members of the VVD group questions whether, in this case bore fruit in a proposed
(prohibited) burgerinfiltratie. Deed here, it is also sought, no longer a situation
which Mr V.d.E. one investigators could introduce to Mr VdS,
whereupon that investigators went to exercise the powers set out in Article 126j Sv?
It should be noted that decisions on deployment of Mr. VdE for
the Holloway case in the first instance would be reserved for the Aruban judicial authorities,
since the investigation into Mr. V.d.S. in the context of that case under the jurisdiction of this
authorities.
Of course, is of interest or any commitment made by Mr VdE in the Netherlands, following
of a (legal) request of the Aruban public prosecutor within the frameworks of the
Dutch laws and regulations could take place.
3 / 6
5541088/08 / 29 april 2007
Bet on a burgerinfiltrant under Article 126w Sv (the article mentioned in the question 126h
Sv focuses on infiltration by investigators) means "a person who is not
investigators, provide assistance to the detection by participating in or cooperate
to grant to a group of persons to which reasonable suspicion exists
crimes are planned or committed ". Powers to burgerinfiltratie can with other
words only be applied in case there is a criminal group of persons,
somebody inside presumably be planned or committed crimes and the deployment of the
burgerinfiltrant designed to participate in or cooperate with the group. In the present case was
However, none of those conditions met. There was no question of a group of people.
Consequently could also no question of participating in or cooperate. Finally
the alleged crime was already committed and there were no suspicions of the commission of
a new crime. Bet on Mr V.d.E. as burgerinfiltrant was therefore based on the
Dutch existing laws and regulations not possible.
Collaboration with Mr. V.d.E. For example, within the meaning of systematic information-gathering by
a citizen (Article 126v Sv) would in principle have been possible. However, the condition that mr.
V.d.E. to his co-alliance, was not compatible with the Dutch laws and
regulations.
In line with this, I also that the deployment - after introduction by Mr. VdE -- Of a
police officer who then in Article 126j Sv regular power to systematic gathering
of information (by investigators without a known is that he is acting as such) --
under the Dutch laws and regulations in principle, also would have been possible.
However, even in respect of this power is that implementing the resolution proposed by Mr.
V.d.E. to his possible involvement in the investigation condition was contrary to the
Dutch policies and regulations. Separately, State has not established that
release of the accused for such a totally unknown person to any result would
have resulted.
The members of the VVD group questions on other occasions in the autumn Mr VdE contact has been established
with the regiopolitie-central Gelderland, and specifically whether this initial contact took place during the
period that the Chief Prosecutor to Aruba half investigation ordered into the
disappearance of Holloway. Is it true, says the members of the VVD group, which VdS at that time
was already in contact with Mr V.d.E.? Had the proper channelling of information from the
Mr V.d.E. may lead to improved understanding by police and prosecutors in Aruba, was before
Mr decided VdE (I assume here is Mr. VdS intended) for the second time
to be held in connection with involvement in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway?
As indicated above, the investigation into the Holloway case outside the jurisdiction of the
Dutch judicial authorities and therefore have no substantive information about
The investigation, except to the extent it publicly by the Aruban authorities
4 / 6
5541088/08 / 29 april 2007
Notices have been made.
According to official information from the Aruban authorities was - in the period that the talks
with Mr. V.d.E. have taken place, namely in October 2007 and early november 2007,
The investigation in 2005 after the disappearance of Natalee Holloway was launched, still underway. First
18 december 2007, that study concluded. The investigation has just reopened after Mr.
Peter R. de Vries on January 20, 2008 the Chief Prosecutor in Aruba has informed of the
information gathered by Mr. V.d.E.
The question of transmission of the information provided by Mr VdE to improved insights to
Police and justice in Aruba could lead before Mr VdS for the second time was
detained However, I can not give judgement. Any decision on that of my
side would also significantly a speculative nature, which I for the sake of
care can neither wish to do so.
Following the notice in my letter of February 14 last that the regiopolitie Gelderland -
Middle this information was not conveyed to the Aruban police and the Aruban public
Ministry asking the members of the CDA and the VVD group-group, what the reason is
been.
As already indicated in my letter of February 14 last to Your Room was in the CIE of the
regiopolitiekorps-central Gelderland in the Netherlands already known that by the regiopolitiekorps
Rotterdam-Rijnmond assistance was given to the Aruban police and the Aruban public
Ministry in the context of its examination in the Holloway case. Because of this involvement and the
lack of direct contacts with the Aruban authorities to regiopolitiekorps
Middle-Gelderland therefore decided to pass on information to the guidance of the CIE
regiopolitiekorps relevant.
In line with this request the members of the VVD group or not for the hand had been
to the Aruban authorities to inform the authorities so that Aruba had independently
can decide on the deployment of an investigation into the meaning of the Dutch article
Sv 126j, whether or not in collaboration with Mr VdE for an initial release. Is the Minister
the members agree with this, it is still requested that an investigation of Aruba had
can be used for such a task in the Netherlands (Article 126, fourth paragraph, under a, Sv)? In
this context ask the members of the CDA group or the Aruban authorities (more)
capability than in the Netherlands case to the offer in detail. Finally
ask the members of the CDA group on the basis of which it can be concluded that if the
Prosecutor would have been informed, it is likely that the conditions nor the
there would have considered for the proposal of Mr VdE further to go.
5 / 6
5541088/08 / 29 april 2007
From the side of the College is notified me that if the information from the Dutch public
Ministry had been known, it is plausible that the Dutch public prosecutor
that the public prosecutor in Aruba would have informed.
Of the Aruban authorities under the Aruban law and regulations might have
can decide on the offer by Mr VdE to go or until the deployment of a
investigators within the meaning of Article 126j Sv could decide, not to my
assessment. Well, I would like to add that any bet on Dutch territory - which
at that time for the hand would have located there Mr VdS in that period in Netherlands
stayed - would have been possible only with the consent of the Dutch authorities and
within the frameworks of the Dutch laws and regulations. This applies also to the commitment in the Netherlands
one of investigators from Aruba, on the basis of Article 126j, fourth paragraph, under a. Sv and the
Samenwerkingsbesluit special investigative (Stb. 1999, 549). As above
above, existed because by Mr VdE Asked conditions
no options. For that reason I have in my letter of February 14 last also made the point
that if the prosecutor would have been informed, it is plausible that it nor the
conditions would have considered at the proposal of Mr VdE further to go.
In my letter of February 14 last I indicated that this issue has been no contact
with the prosecution in the Netherlands, while this, taking into account the sensitive nature of this
Case, the hand had been.
This prompts the members of the CDA Group to ask how in the future such
inschattingsfouten can be prevented. The members of the VVD group questions in this regard or
there by the public prosecutor in Arnhem and Rotterdam measures have been taken to prevent such
act in the sequel to prevent and whether the police are now aware of
Such topics in the structured dialogue with the prosecutor raised to
bring. Why would information about the disappearance of Holloway, who nearly three years the media
controlled, should not automatically fall within the working arrangements between public ministry and
Police in relation to the handling investigative, so ask the members of the VVDfractie
still.
In response to my letter of February 14 last to Your Room and identified
bottleneck that the prosecutor was not informed in this area, the Chief of
Justice at Arnhem and Rotterdam the regiopolitiekorpsen-central Gelderland respectively
Rotterdam-Rijnmond have emphasised that all the special things, and this can
as such, now in the regular consultations of the Public Ministry in the CIE's
submitted for discussion should be. In addition, at the national level, this point also among the
attention of the national meeting of CIE prosecutors.
6 / 6
5541088/08 / 29 april 2007
Finally, with regard to the question of the members of the CDA Group I or under the
ruling by Mr VdE after his interview for the Aruban program Un Dia den
Bida that he would know who the body of Natalee Holloway has thrown into the sea and that he Mr.
VdS for years would know, am willing to further research be carried out, I note that it is for
the prosecutor in Aruba, and not for me to make that assessment.
The Minister of Justice,
