About the INPS

Focus on JMS

Important Announcements

Activities & Photos, 2001 - Present

Archival Photos

Press Statements & Interviews, 2001 - Present

Brief Messages & Letters, 2001 - Present

Articles & Speeches, 2001 - Present

Articles & Speeches, 1991 - 2000


Display of Books

Bibliography 1991 - 2000

Bibliography 1961 - 1990

Documents of Legal Cases

Defend Sison Campaign

Letters to Jose Maria Sison





Statement of Prof. Jose Maria Sison Before the Raad van State on 23 August 2005

Your Honors:

To this day, I am grateful that this court made a decision in my favor in 1995, to the following effect:

1. That I am a recognized political refugee under Article 1 A of the Refugee Convention and that the claims of the Dutch government against me under Article 1 F are baseless.

2. That I am under the absolute protection of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (EVRM).

The 1995 decision of the Raad van State on my case also made clear that if no other country were willing to take me, without putting me at risk to suffer the violation of the guarantees of Article 3 of EVRM, the Dutch government is obliged to grant me asylum and the residence permit.

Unfortunately, the REK in 1997 overruled the decision of the Raad van State on certain crucial points. It denied the absolute protection of Article 3 by weighing against my interest the secret intelligence dossiers, which the Raad van State had repeatedly declared as anathema to the principle of fair administration in its 1992 and 1995 decisions on my asylum case.

The most important thrust of the REK decision, contrary to the decision of the Raad van State, was to rule that it suffices for the Dutch state not to deport or expel me in order to comply with its obligations under Article 3 of the EVRM.

Since then, the Dutch government has practically emptied out the guarantees provided to me by said Article 3 by insisting that I am unlawfully staying in The Netherlands and that I myself have the obligation to leave this country. It brazenly threatens my life and subjects me to inhuman and degrading treatment by depriving me of the essential means to human existence in order to drive me out of the country and to evade its obligations under EVRM and international law.

It has always been my understanding that as one protected by article 3 of EVRM, I am protected not only from being sent directly or indirectly to the sword of the country from which I have fled but also from the violations of my rights under Article 3 of EVRM and the entirety of the EVRM by the Dutch and other entities in The Netherlands and Europe.

The Dutch state itself should neither threaten my life nor degrade and humiliate me by banning me from work and at the same time taking away social benefits due me, inciting public hatred against me by maligning me as a terrorist without any kind of due process and subjecting me thereby to humiliating and degrading punishment.

The Dutch state should not deprive me of the means of subsistence in order to drive me out of The Netherlands, do away with its obligation under Article 3 of EVRM and probably deliver me to a country that violates this.

My understanding of the EVRM is that anyone within the jurisdiction of the European Union or any of its contracting parties, especially someone who is a recognized political refugee under the Refugee Convention and who is protected by Article 3, is entitled to certain rights and freedoms under EVRM aside from those guarantees under Article 3.

Under EVRM I have the right to my life and property, to due process in any action of the state that ascribes to me a criminal offense and inflicts punitive measures on me, to privacy and family life, to freedom of movement and to be secure from slander, vilification and public incitement to hatred against my person.

I think that the level of protection accorded to me under Article 3 of EVRM is far higher than the repeated orders for me to leave the Netherlands and likewise repeated withdrawals of such orders. I am well covered by the jurisprudence established in the decision of the Raad van State on my asylum case in1995 and by that one established by the European Court of Human Rights in the Chahal case in 1996. ###

return to top


what's new 

free web hosting | free hosting | Business Web Hosting | Free Website Submission | shopping cart | php hosting