25 March 1996


Communication No. 664/1995; U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/56/D/664/1995


human rights committee

  Fifty-Sixth Session  
  18 March 4 April 1996  

Gesina Kruyt-Amesz, Hendrik Gerrit Schraa, Hendrikus Gerardus Maria Karis and Maria Johanna Josephina Moors






  Return Home
BEFORE: CHAIRMAN: Mr. Francisco Jose Aguilar Urbina (Costa Rica)
VICE-CHAIRMEN: Mr. Prafullachandra Natwarlal Baghwati (India), Mr. Tamas Ban (Hungary), Mr. Omran El Shafei (Egypt)
RAPPORTEUR: Mrs. Christine Chanet (France)
MEMBERS: Mr. Nisuke Ando (Japan); Mr. Marco Tulio Bruni Celli (Venezuela); Mr. Thomas Buergenthal (United States); Lord Colville (United Kingdom); Mrs. Elizabeth Evatt (Australia); Mr. Laurel Francis (Jamaica); Mr. Eckart Klein (Germany); Mr. David Kretzmer (Israel); Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah (Mauritius); Mr. Andreas Mavrommatis (Cyprus); Mrs. Cecilia Medina Quiroga (Chile); Mr. Fausto Pocar (Italy); Mr. Julio Prado Vallejo (Ecuador)

Mr. Nisuke Ando and Mr. David Kretzmer attended only part of the fifty-sixth session.

PermaLink: http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/1996.03.25_Kruyt_Amesz_v_Netherlands.htm
Citation: Kruyt-Amesz v. Neth., Comm. 664/1995, U.N. Doc. A/51/40, Vol. II, at 280 (HRC 1996)
Publications: Report of the Human Rights Committee, U.N. GAOR, 51st Sess., Supp. No. 40, U.N. Doc. A/51/40, Vol. II, Annex IX, sect. K, at 280 (Apr.13, 1997)

1.         The authors of the communication are Gesina Kruyt-Amesz, Hendrik G. Schraa, Hendrikus G.M. Karis and Maria J.J. Moors, Dutch citizens. They claim to be victims of a violation by the Netherlands of article 15 of the Covenant. They are represented by counsel. [FN1]



[FN1] See also communication No. 578/1994 (De Groot v. the Netherlands), declared inadmissible by the Committee on 14 July 1995.





2.1       On 16 July 1989, the authors in cooperation with others removed part of the wire fence and illegally gained access to the naval air base Valkenburg in order to plant trees as a protest against the continuing militarization of the Netherlands and especially against the nuclear strategy of the Netherlands defence policy. As a justification for their action, they refer to the Nuremberg judgment where it was found that individuals have international duties that transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed upon them by States. They emphasize that the action of 16 July 1989 was openly prepared and that a statement was given to the press, signed by the participants, that the action was going to take place. The protest was carried out according to the principles of non-violence against persons and the activists remained on the air base until captured by the police.


2.2       By judgment of 25 January 1991, the district court of The Hague found the authors guilty of membership of a criminal organization, in contravention of article 140 of the Dutch Penal Code, and sentenced them to a fine of respectively Fl. 1,000, Fl. 750, Fl. 750 and Fl. 1,500 and to suspended sentences of four weeks' imprisonment for Mrs. Moors and of two weeks' imprisonment for the others. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of The Hague, by judgment of 9 June 1992, sentenced the authors to two weeks' imprisonment. The authors' appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court was rejected on 11 May 1993.




3.         The authors submit that their conviction is in violation of article 15 of the Covenant, since article 140 of the Penal Code is so broad that it could not have been foreseen that it was applicable to their participation in the protest.




4.1       Before considering any claim in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.


4.2       The authors claim to be victims of a violation of article 15 of the Covenant, because they could not have foreseen that article 140 of the Criminal Code, on the basis of which they were convicted, was applicable to their case. The Committee refers to its established jurisprudence [FN2] that interpretation of domestic legislation is essentially a matter for the courts and authorities of the State party concerned. Since it does not appear from the information before the Committee that the law in the present case was interpreted and applied arbitrarily or that its application amounted to a denial of justice, the Committee considers that the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.



[FN2] See inter alia the Committee's decision in communication No. 58/1979 (Anna Maroufidou v. Sweden), paragraph 10.1 (Views adopted on 9 April 1981).



5.         The Committee therefore decides:


(a)        that the communication is inadmissible;


(b)       that this decision shall be communicated to the authors of the communication and, for information, to the State party.






home | terms & conditions | copyright | about


Copyright 1999-2011 WorldCourts. All rights reserved.