CASE OF RAMSAHAI AND OTHERS  v. THE NETHERLANDS

Violation of Art. 2;No violation of Art. 2;No separate issue under Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Antonella Mularoni;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Jean-Paul Costa;John Hedigan;Khanlar Hajiyev;Loukis Loucaides;Lucius Caflisch;Luzius Wildhaber;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Nicolas Bratza;Peer Lorenzen;Snejana Botoucharova;Stanislav Pavlovschi;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky;Wilhelmina Thomassen

The first CARDINAL applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are the grandfather and grandmother of Mr ORG Ghasuta Ramsahai ( “ Moravia Ramsahai ” ) , deceased . They were both born in DATE . They were their grandson ’s guardians until he reached his majority at DATE . The third applicant , Mr PERSON , born in DATE , is the father of the late PERSON .

PERSON was born on DATE . He died on DATE .

On TIME DATE , during the “ GPE ” festival in the NORP district of GPE ( a celebration by the NORP immigrant community of the abolition of slavery in GPE DATE ) , PERSON forced the owner of a scooter , CARDINAL Mr PERSON , at gunpoint to give up his vehicle . Having gained control of the scooter , he then made off with it .

Mr Hoeseni notified QUANTITY police officers patrolling on foot , who reported the theft to the duty police officer at GPE police station by radio . The duty police officer in turn alerted police patrolling in the area . In the meantime Mr PERSON and the QUANTITY police officers had set off in pursuit of FAC and the scooter but failed to catch him .

Afterwards it was a matter of controversy between the QUANTITY police officers and PERSON whether PERSON had mentioned the fact that PERSON had a firearm . Mr PERSON stated that he had given this information but had been misheard . The QUANTITY police officers stated that they had been unaware of it and so had not been able to pass on this information to the police station .

TIME , CARDINAL uniformed police officers , ORG , patrolling in a marked police car , saw a scooter being driven by a person fitting the description given to them stopping near a high - rise building called “ NORP ” . They stopped the car and got out . Officer PERSON ran towards the person whom they had seen riding the scooter , later identified as PERSON , and tried to arrest him . There was a brief struggle from which Moravia Ramsahai was able to extricate himself .

Officer PERSON saw PERSON draw a pistol from his trouser belt . Officer PERSON then dropped a CARDINAL - way radio which he had been holding in his hand , drew his service pistol and ordered PERSON to drop his weapon . PERSON failed to do so . Officer PERSON , the driver of the patrol car , then approached . It was stated afterwards that PERSON raised his pistol and pointed it in the direction of Officer PERSON , who also drew his service pistol and fired . PERSON was hit in the neck .

The confrontation between ORG and ORG was observed from nearby by only a single witness , Mr PERSON den PERSON , who was able to follow the incident from the fifth - floor walkway of the Huigenbos building . However , when he saw pistols being drawn , Mr PERSON den LOC dived for cover behind the parapet ; he therefore did not see the shot fired .

Several other people witnessed the confrontation and the shooting from a distance of QUANTITY . None of these witnesses subsequently reported seeing PERSON pistol .

At TIME of the QUANTITY police officers , later stated to have been Officer PERSON , radioed GPE police station to say that he had shot someone and asked for an ambulance to be sent .

When the ambulance arrived on the scene , at TIME , the ambulance crew declared PERSON already dead .

Upon his return to GPE police station , Officer PERSON was seen by the Commanding Officer of the GPE / GPE police force , Police Commissioner PERSON , who offered comfort and support . Subsequently , the applicants alleged , Police Commissioner PERSON was quoted in the mass circulation DATE newspaper PERSON as having stated : “ Whatever kind of committee of inquiry may be set up in addition , I will not let them in . ” ( “ PERSON voor een onderzoekscommissie er daarnaast ook wordt ingesteld , ze komen er QUANTITY mij niet in . ” )

NORP The GPE coroner ( lijkschouwer ) viewed LOC body before it was removed . In his report to the public prosecutor , he expressed the provisional opinion that the cause of death had been a shot from a firearm injuring vital neck organs or structures .

Officers Brons and Bultstra were back on duty DATE after the incident .

Local police arrived on the scene , cordoned off the scene of the shooting and took the names of Mr PERSON den PERSON and others who had witnessed the confrontation .

Forensic experts from the GPE / GPE police force secured evidence , mainly in the form of photographs , which was afterwards added to the investigation file . They found the bullet , which had passed through LOC Ramsahai ’s body and had destroyed a glass window but which had left no other mark , and Moravia Ramsahai ’s pistol , which had been loaded and ready to fire .

Later that night a special operations unit ( PERSON , “ ORG ” ) of the GPE / GPE police questioned all residents of the NORP building whom they found at home . In CARDINAL flat there was a DATE girl , Miss PERSON , who stated that when she had taken the lift down to the ground floor the door of the lift had struck a scooter lying on the floor . As she had got out of the lift she had heard a bang . She had seen CARDINAL police officers and heard one of them say : “ I fired my weapon . ” She had seen a male victim lying on the ground .

NORP Over DATE , officers of the GPE / GPE police force took various witness statements , which are summarised below .

Mr PERSON reported the theft of his scooter to the GPE / GPE police on DATE .

Mr PERSON had purchased the scooter DATE . On TIME he had ridden it to the GPE festival where he had met his girlfriend . While he was with her , a youth unknown to him had come up to him and said : “ Get off . Get off . I ’ll shoot you , I ’ll shoot you . ” ( “ Deraf . PERSON . PERSON , QUANTITY schiet jou . ” ) PERSON had felt something being pushed against his right side . Looking down , he had recognised the object as a lady ’s pistol . He had been unwilling to give up the scooter but his girlfriend had advised him to do so lest he be shot . He had then let go of the scooter and run towards the first policemen he saw .

Mr PERSON had told CARDINAL of them that his scooter had been stolen at gunpoint and that they should run after it . He had given a description of the scooter and the thief . Mr PERSON and the QUANTITY police officers present had gone after the thief , but he had ridden off .

Mr PERSON had later heard , on the police officers’ CARDINAL - way radio , that the scooter had been found . Together with the police officers he had gone and identified it as his .

Ms Anita Andjiedewie GPE , Mr PERSON ’s girlfriend , was questioned on DATE . She had gone with her brother to the GPE festival , where she had met PERSON . PERSON had just bought a new scooter . PERSON brother had gone to fetch something to drink for the QUANTITY of them . After TIME she and PERSON had been approached by a youth whom she had noticed looking at her and the scooter . The youth had said to Mr PERSON : “ Get off , get off ” ( “ PERSON af , stap af ” ) and had pressed an object resembling a firearm against Mr PERSON ’s stomach . She had thought at first that this was a friend of PERSON playing a prank , but realised from the latter ’s facial expression that this was not the case .

She had prevailed on her boyfriend to get off the scooter when the youth had said : “ Get off , get off , or I will shoot ” ( “ GPE eraf , GPE eraf , anders QUANTITY ik schieten ” ) . Mr PERSON had then run off to get help , whilst the youth bump - started the scooter and made off with it . Mr PERSON had returned with QUANTITY police officers and the QUANTITY of them had set off in pursuit of the youth on the scooter . PERSON had joined them for a while but had been called back by her brother . Together they had run in the direction taken by the police officers . Arriving at the NORP building , they had seen a large number of cars . Mr PERSON had told them that the youth had been caught and that the police had shot him .

Mr Petrus van den LOC was questioned on DATE . He stated that he lived on the fifth floor of the NORP building .

Happening to look down from the walkway , he had seen a policeman run towards the doorway . He had seen a coloured man with a shaved head come out of the doorway . He had seen the policeman try to grab the coloured man by his arm . The coloured man had made a sideways movement with his arm , as if to indicate that he did not want to go along with the policeman , and the policeman had not been able to hold on to him .

The coloured man had then drawn a pistol or a revolver , whether out of his pocket or out of his trouser band Mr PERSON Heuvel could not see . The weapon was of a silver - grey colour with a dark - coloured grip . Mr PERSON den ORG instinctive reaction had been to dive for cover behind the balustrade of the walkway . As he glanced over briefly out of curiosity , it had appeared to him that the policeman had taken a few steps sideways . The coloured man was still holding the weapon in his hand . He was not pointing it in any particular direction , but had not dropped it either . All this happened very quickly , perhaps in CARDINAL a minute .

In the meantime a second policeman had come running up . He had heard “ Drop it ” being shouted very loudly CARDINAL times . The coloured man must have heard it , but ignored it . Mr PERSON den Heuvel did not remember seeing the second policeman standing still after he had reached the scene of events . He had heard a bang and seen the coloured man collapse . The weapon had fallen to the ground QUANTITY away . The first policeman had walked up to the coloured man to inspect him . The second policeman had spoken into some device or other , after which help had arrived . He had tried to call the police on his telephone , but had been told that help was on its way . He had stood and watched a little longer before going down and giving his name to the police as a witness .

Police Officer PERSON was questioned on DATE . At TIME , he had been patrolling the GPE festival with Officer Boonstra .

Officer PERSON had been addressed by a young man whom he did not know , who told him that he had been dragged off his scooter and that his scooter had been taken from him ; this had happened TIME . The young man had given him the scooter ’s insurance papers and indicated the direction in which the thief had made off with the scooter . Officers PERSON and NORP , together with the young man , had run in the direction indicated by the latter . While running Officer PERSON had radioed through the description of the scooter to other police officers . At this point he had not been aware that the thief had used a weapon ; the owner of the scooter had not mentioned it . Officer PERSON had assumed that the thief had used physical force only , the owner of the scooter having stated that he had been dragged off his vehicle .

The thief had managed to start the scooter as they caught sight of him . They had continued running but the scooter had been going too fast . Officer PERSON had radioed through his own description of the scooter and its rider , the possible directions in which they might have gone and the insurance plate number . They had continued running ; upon reaching the pedestrian underpass Officer PERSON had heard , on his radio set , another policeman reporting a shooting and shortly afterwards calling an ambulance . Officer PERSON estimated that TIME had elapsed from when he transmitted his description of the scooter until the report of the shooting , but he could not be sure .

As Officers PERSON and NORP stood wondering whether there was any connection between the shooting and the theft of the scooter , the owner of the scooter , who had apparently overheard the police radio , had told them that the thief had a small silver - coloured pistol .

Officers PERSON and NORP and the owner of the scooter had made their way to the scene of the shooting in front of the NORP building . They had seen a person lying supine on the ground , with CARDINAL uniformed police officers kneeling beside him . They had advanced and recognised the scooter .

Police Officer PERSON GPE was questioned on DATE . His work consisted of , among other things , monitoring and dealing with CARDINAL - way radio traffic .

On DATE at TIME Officer PERSON had been sitting at his plotting table when he had heard a report come in by CARDINAL - way radio from a surveillance police officer to say that he was following a youth who had just stolen a scooter . A little later the officer had radioed in to say that the thief had managed to bump - start the scooter , and to give an indication of the direction in which the thief had gone . The officer had sounded unemotional , as if it were nothing more than an “ ordinary ” theft of a scooter .

As the officer was on foot , he had requested the assistance of a motorised colleague . In so doing he had given a description of the scooter . Officer PERSON had asked a colleague on a motorcycle to go in the direction indicated .

As the motorcycle policeman had been about to leave the police station forecourt , Officer PERSON had heard Officer PERSON from his marked police car report that he had seen the scooter with the thief enter the doorway leading to the third lift of the NORP building and would go after him . Officer PERSON too had sounded unemotional .

TIME , perhaps less , Officer Braam had heard Officer PERSON saying : “ The suspect has been shot , I need an ambulance . ” Again , Officer PERSON had sounded calm and professional . Officer PERSON had then called for the appropriate services .

Officer GPE had not heard Officer PERSON take part in the radio conversation . This reflected standard practice , namely that the driver of a police car – in this case Officer PERSON – had his CARDINAL - way radio set to the frequency of the central incident room , whereas the “ passenger ” – Officer Bultstra – had his radio set to the frequency used by the local team .

Police Officer PERSON was questioned on DATE .

Officer PERSON was a uniformed police officer on the basic police assistance staff . The previous night she had been seated at the plotting table from TIME until TIME . Until the shooting it had been a quiet night . She had sat there with Officer PERSON and PERSON .

At TIME she had heard , on the radio frequency used by the district police , that a police officer was chasing a scooter , and also which direction the scooter had taken . She did not remember the precise words used , nor any description given of the rider .

Shortly afterwards she had heard the voice of Officer PERSON , reporting the sighting of the scooter . A second or CARDINAL later Officer PERSON had reported seeing the scooter in one of the doorways of the NORP building .

Superintendent Sikking had called by radio : “ All right boys , everyone go to NORP ” ( “ PERSON met QUANTITY allen naar Huigenbos ” ) .

Very shortly afterwards Officer PERSON had said : “ I need an ambulance , I fired my weapon ” ( “ Ik heb geschoten ” ) . PERSON had asked him to repeat that . Officer PERSON had repeated : “ I fired my weapon . ” Most of the police officers present had then gone out and Officers PERSON and GPE had contacted the appropriate emergency services .

Officer PERSON had later heard Officer PERSON say that the ambulance was needed urgently because the suspect was in a very bad way .

It was DATE that Officer PERSON had been informed by other police officers that it was in fact Officer PERSON who had fired the shot .

Police Officer PERSON was questioned on DATE . He was a police - dog handler whose duty station was GPE police station . He had been on duty the previous night , with his police dog .

He had heard , on his CARDINAL - way radio , that a scooter had been stolen at the GPE festival . The direction in which the thief had driven off was given . The description was of a coloured male , dressed in black , riding a red scooter . Officer PERSON had gone in the direction indicated .

Officer PERSON ’s car was passed by a marked police car in which there were QUANTITY police officers . He had recognised the driver , Officer PERSON , but not the passenger . He had seen the car being parked and the passenger emerge .

Officer PERSON had also parked his car , intending to look for the thief if he could . He had been getting the police dog out when he had heard a pistol shot .

He had run with the dog in the direction from which the sound of the shot had come . Having reached the NORP building , he had met Officer PERSON coming towards him . He had seen Officer PERSON kneeling near the head of a man who was lying flat on the ground .

He had asked Officer PERSON what had happened . Officer PERSON had replied that a shot had been fired . Officer PERSON had asked who had fired the shot . Officer PERSON had replied that a pistol had been aimed at them and the police had fired .

Officer PERSON had pointed out a silver - coloured pistol lying on the ground close to the man . Officer PERSON had been administering first aid . Officer PERSON had not been able to see any injury . He had had to keep his distance from the man because of the dog .

NORP The man on the ground fitted the description given of the person who had stolen the scooter . There had been a red scooter in the doorway of the building and so Officer PERSON had understood that this was the person suspected of having committed the theft .

Officer PERSON had heard Officer PERSON notify the local health authority and the police superintendent on duty . Officer PERSON had guarded the area until the arrival of the criminal investigators ( recherche ) and the forensic experts . He had stayed on the scene until they had finished and had returned to the police station at TIME .

DATE . Police Officer PERSON was questioned on DATE . He had been assigned , together with Police Officer PERSON , to patrol the GPE festival , their task being to observe and to maintain a preventive presence . At some point , a NORP male had come running up to them and had beckoned them to follow him . Because the NORP had given the impression that something was the matter , they had followed him . While running he had told Officer PERSON what the matter was . Officer PERSON had been following at a distance of QUANTITY .

Officer Boonstra had heard on his CARDINAL - way radio that a scooter had been stolen . It had not been immediately clear to him that the scooter belonged to the NORP .

At CARDINAL point they had seen the scooter QUANTITY ahead of them , being ridden slowly . Officer PERSON had told Officer PERSON that that was the scooter which had been stolen . The person riding the scooter had noticed the police officers but instead of stopping , had increased his speed . While moving in the direction of the NORP building , they had heard it reported on the CARDINAL - way radio that there had been a shooting . They had not immediately linked the shooting to the stealing of the scooter . Still accompanied by the NORP , they had continued in the direction of the NORP building , where they had noticed CARDINAL or QUANTITY police cars . The NORP had recognised his scooter .

Ms Najima Boujedaine was questioned on DATE . She worked as chief cashier at a ORG restaurant located on the PERSON in GPE . On DATE she had been on the night shift , from TIME until TIME DATE .

Ms Boujedaine had noticed the presence of a particular youth from TIME . She described him as being of ORG , DATE , bald - headed with CARDINAL golden teeth , dressed in a black tee shirt and trousers and black shoes and wearing a golden chain around his neck . From TIME she had noticed him distracting one of the cashiers , a young woman called PERSON .

Taken to task for failing to concentrate on her work , PERSON had explained to PERSON that the youth was her boyfriend . The youth had reacted angrily , telling PERSON to go easy on PERSON or else .

After telling PERSON , jokingly , that she might have to stay a little longer , PERSON had seen the youth staring at her fixedly . This had frightened her , but she had not wished to show fear . Just before she had turned around to pour a soft drink she had seen his right hand move towards the band of his trousers .

Ms Boujedaine ’s sister PERSON ( or PERSON ) , who also worked at that restaurant , had then said : “ PERSON , he was pointing a pistol at you ! ” Ms GPE had turned around and seen the youth stick something down the band of his trousers . PERSON had later described the pistol as a small silver - grey model known as a “ ladykiller ” .

DATE . A NORP girl had then asked the youth a question in her own language and he had replied . She had then told PERSON that she had asked the youth whether he was carrying a pistol , to which he had replied in the affirmative .

The youth had looked as though he might have been smoking cannabis , but PERSON could not be sure of that .

He had continued to bother PERSON in her work . He had left several times and come back . At CARDINAL point he had returned on a brand new silver - grey scooter .

The youth had struck up a conversation with PERSON in which he had indicated that he wanted to clear out the safe after closing time ; he wanted her to give him the codes for the safe . In the course of this conversation he had been eyeing the drawers of the cash registers .

NORP Several times he had repeated that it was already TIME and Ms GPE should close PERSON ’s cash register .

Ms Boujedaine had felt uncomfortable and frightened , particularly after the youth had indicated his intention “ to wring the manager ’s neck ” .

The youth had become angry again at TIME , when PERSON had terminated the conversation . PERSON had then locked up PERSON ’s cash register and secured the tray . She had seen him and PERSON leave at TIME , on the scooter on which he had arrived earlier .

Mr PERSON had come forward after hearing of the shooting at the NORP building . He was questioned on DATE . He wished to report having been threatened .

On DATE at TIME he had been at the GPE festival site with his wife and some friends . There had been a group of youths behind them , CARDINAL of whom had been seated on a scooter or moped ( bromfiets ) . Mr PERSON described the vehicle as having a blue fairing . At CARDINAL point the youth had started the engine and repeatedly opened the throttle , releasing large quantities of exhaust fumes . This had given rise to complaints from Mr PERSON group . Mr PERSON himself had then gone up to the youth and asked him either to ride off or to turn off his engine , because he was poisoning everyone with his noxious fumes . The youth had turned off the engine and approached Mr PERSON , saying : “ You ’re smoking [ a cigarette ] , you ’re going to die too . ” Mr PERSON had thought that the youth wanted to discuss the matter like a reasonable person . Instead , the youth had taken a small metal - coloured pistol out of his right - hand trouser pocket and said : “ Nobody ’s going to tell me what to do . I do as I please , we ’re all going to die anyway . ”

Mr PERSON ’s wife , greatly upset by the sight of the pistol , had pulled him away . The youth had got back onto the scooter .

None of the bystanders , who had been numerous , had offered any assistance . They had clearly been deterred by the sight of the pistol .

Mr PERSON , the brother of Mr PERSON ’s girlfriend , was questioned on DATE .

On DATE , TIME and TIME , he had been at the GPE festival in the company of his sister and PERSON . He had left them to fetch something to drink for the CARDINAL of them . He had heard shouting , and he had seen Mr PERSON run towards some police officers present . He had run after Mr PERSON and asked him what the matter was . Mr PERSON had answered that he would tell him later . He had found his sister in tears and asked her what had happened . She had told him how Mr PERSON had been forced at gunpoint to hand over his scooter .

Detective Chief Superintendent of ORG ( hoofdinspecteur van politie - rijksrecherche ) PERSON was put in charge of the investigation . His investigation report states that after TIME on DATE the GPE / GPE police force only carried out investigations “ in the periphery ” of PERSON at the request of ORG . He reported his findings to Public Prosecutor PERSON , who was the public prosecutor in charge of criminal investigation work carried out at GPE police station .

Detective Chief PERSON took statements from a number of witnesses , including some already questioned by officers of the GPE / GPE police . These are summarised below .

Mr Petrus van den LOC was questioned a second time on DATE , this time by Detective Chief PERSON .

Supplementing his earlier statement , Mr PERSON den PERSON described what he had seen from the fifth - floor walkway of the high - rise building . He had seen a uniformed police officer running towards the doorway . He had seen a coloured male go to meet the policeman from the doorway . This man had been walking very slowly , at a snail ’s pace . The police officer had wanted to grab hold of the man , by his left arm , as it appeared to Mr PERSON den PERSON . The coloured man had made a gesture as if to push away the police officer . He had hit the police officer , knocking him off balance somewhat , which enabled the coloured man to pass .

After he had passed the police officer , the coloured man had drawn a pistol or a revolver , a firearm at any rate , which he had held in his right hand . He had held his arm slanted downwards , thus pointing the pistol towards the ground , and had tried to continue on his way . Mr PERSON den PERSON had not seen the police officers draw their pistols . Feeling threatened by the pistol which the coloured man had drawn and not wishing to be hit by a stray bullet , he had dived for cover . He had therefore not witnessed the actual shooting , but he had heard shouts of “ Drop it ” several times .

Officer PERSON , by then under investigation as a suspected perpetrator of a criminal act , was questioned under caution by Detective Chief PERSON in TIME of DATE . The lawyer retained for him and Officer PERSON , Mr PERSON , was present .

Officers Brons and ORG had completed some assignments and had been on their way back to the police station . They were in a marked police car , with Officer PERSON driving . They had then received the radio call about the theft of the scooter . They had been told the make of the scooter and its colour and had been given a summary description of the thief and the direction in which he had fled . They had not been told that he was armed .

Driving in the direction reported , Officers Brons and ORG had seen a scooter and a driver fitting the description given to them turning into the doorway of a lift in the NORP block of flats . This had surprised them , because they would have expected him to try and evade arrest on noticing that he was being followed by a marked police car .

Officers Brons and ORG had agreed that Officer PERSON would go after the thief while Officer PERSON parked the car . Officer PERSON had run towards the doorway holding a CARDINAL - way radio . When Officer PERSON was at a distance of between twenty and QUANTITY from the doorway , the thief had emerged and run for a short distance . He had stopped and raised his hands when he had seen Officer PERSON and shouted something unintelligible . Officer PERSON had taken hold of the thief with both hands and had tried to turn him towards the building . The thief , however , had resisted . Officer PERSON had shouted something to him which Officer PERSON had been unable to understand .

Officer PERSON had understood that the thief would not come quietly and that Officer PERSON needed help ; he had therefore left the car and run towards them . He had reached a point CARDINAL seven metres from the thief when the thief managed to tear himself loose and ended up at a distance of QUANTITY from Officer PERSON . Suddenly Officer PERSON had seen the thief holding a silver - coloured weapon which he had not seen him draw . It was a small pistol and it was pointed towards the ground . Officer PERSON had not seen whether or not the pistol was cocked . It had seemed to him that Officer PERSON had also seen the pistol , because Officer PERSON had stepped backwards , drawing his service pistol and adopting a defensive posture . He had heard Officer PERSON shouting “ Drop that weapon . Do n’t be silly , man ” ( “ CARDINAL vallen dat wapen . PERSON man ” ) at least twice .

The thief had not reacted by dropping his pistol , much to the surprise of Officer PERSON seeing that Officer PERSON had him covered . Given that the thief was armed and apparently had no intention of doing as he was told , Officer PERSON had considered that Officer PERSON was under threat . He had considered it highly possible that the thief would use his weapon against Officer PERSON . He had been completely focused on the thief . He had seen only the thief , holding a pistol with his finger on the trigger . At that point Officer PERSON had not yet considered it necessary to draw his own service pistol because the thief was covered by Officer PERSON . His hand had been close to , but not on , the holster .

Officer PERSON had then seen the thief turn to the right , towards him , and turn the front of his body in his direction at a distance of CARDINAL to QUANTITY . He had seen the thief raise his pistol and point it in his direction . Afraid that the thief would fire at him , Officer PERSON had drawn his pistol from its holster with lightning speed ( bliksemsnel ) and had immediately fired CARDINAL shot at the thief . He had had no time to aim at any particular part of the body . He remained convinced that if he had not fired first , the thief would have shot him .

Officer PERSON had thought at the time that he had hit the thief high in the chest . Only later had he learned that he had hit the thief in the neck . The thief had remained on his feet for a short while longer ; he had then tottered and collapsed , dropping the pistol . He had tried to stand up , milling his arms about . Officer PERSON had pushed the thief ’s pistol away with his foot to prevent him from grabbing it .

Officer PERSON had approached the man as he lay on the ground . Seeing that the thief was no longer a threat , he had put his pistol away .

Officer PERSON had contacted the police station by CARDINAL - way radio and had asked for the intervention of the local health authority ( PERSON en Gezondheidsdienst ) . Feeling that they were taking a long time to arrive , he had again called the police station and asked them to hurry up .

ORG . Officer PERSON had concerned himself with the victim . As for Officer PERSON , he had removed himself from the scene . He had seen a man trying to enter the doorway and had asked him not to do so because the area had to be cordoned off for investigation .

Officers Brons and ORG had been taken back to the police station by a fellow officer . Officer PERSON had handed in his pistol there . Officers PERSON and Bultstra had received assistance and comfort from fellow officers and superiors and had been informed about the further procedure .

Officer PERSON had only fired once . It had never been his intention to shoot to kill but only to end the life - threatening situation . He felt that he had had no choice . He greatly regretted that the thief had died .

Like Officer PERSON , Officer PERSON was interviewed by Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON on DATE in the presence of the lawyer Mr PERSON .

He and Officer PERSON had been on their way back to GPE police station after completing an assignment when they had received word by CARDINAL - way radio that another policeman was pursuing on foot a thief who had just stolen a scooter . They had heard the description of the scooter and the thief , and the direction the thief had taken . It had not been mentioned that the thief was armed . They had then gone to intercept the thief .

Seeing a person and a vehicle matching the description given travelling towards a particular high - rise building , they had decided to park the car and arrest him . They had agreed that Officer PERSON would leave the car immediately and pursue the man , after which Officer PERSON would lock up the car and join Officer PERSON .

Officer PERSON had seen the man on the scooter ride into the doorway of the building . Having got within QUANTITY of the building , Officer PERSON had seen the man come running out of the doorway . Seeing Officer PERSON , the man had called : “ So what ’s the matter then ? What ’s the matter then ? ” ( “ En wat nou ? En wat nou ? ” ) . His arms had been dangling next to his body . He had raised them slightly when asking that question . Officer PERSON and the man had approached each other . The man had glanced to the right and left , apparently looking for a way to evade capture . His preference appeared to be for an underpass through the building , so Officer PERSON had gone to head him off . His intention had been to grab the man and arrest him .

Officer PERSON had grabbed the man by his left arm and pushed him bodily against the building . He had had the impression that the man was aggressive because of his posture and his way of talking , and that he appeared intent on resisting arrest . He had managed to tear himself loose and turn around . He had then taken CARDINAL steps backwards , towards the doorway . His hands had been close to his body and his body had been angled forwards , his posture threatening .

NORP The man had then brought his right hand towards the left of his chest or his belly , as a person would who was about to draw a firearm from there . He had looked Officer PERSON straight in the eye and said : “ So what ’s the matter then ? ” ( “ En wat nou ? ” ) . Officer PERSON had not seen him stick his hand inside his clothing . Seeing the gesture , Officer PERSON had thought that the man was acting like someone who was about to draw a weapon . His common sense had told him to be on his guard . He had stepped backwards and placed his right hand on his service pistol , releasing the holster clip at the same time . He had not drawn his service pistol but had positioned himself so as to be able to do so immediately . Pointing to the man with his left hand , he had called out : “ Show me your hands . Do n’t be silly ” ( “ QUANTITY . PERSON ” ) . The man had then dropped his hand and resumed his earlier posture , his arms dangling next to his body . He had said : “ So what is it then ? What is it then ? ” ( “ En wat dan ? En wat dan ? ” ) and had walked away from Officer PERSON . His body had still been angled towards Officer PERSON and his eyes still directed towards him . Officer PERSON had remained in the same position .

NORP The man had again brought his right hand towards his body , to the same place as before , and had taken hold of something . Officer PERSON had not been able to see what it was . After the man had moved his hand some distance away from his body , Officer PERSON had seen that he was holding a small silver - coloured pistol in his fist .

The situation was now so threatening that Officer PERSON had drawn his service pistol to protect himself . In view of the man ’s behaviour he was afraid that the man might fire . Officer PERSON had taken hold of his service weapon in both hands and , adopting a defensive position , had aimed at the man ’s chest . He remembered shouting “ Drop it ” ( “ QUANTITY ” ) several times . He might have shouted other things , but he did not remember having shouted anything other than “ Do n’t be silly . Drop it ” ( “ PERSON . Laat vallen ” ) . He had seen the man lower the hand holding the pistol alongside his body , so that the barrel was pointing towards the ground . The man had kept the front of his body turned towards Officer PERSON , his legs slightly apart and his arms out – that is , not hanging limp – and he had kept moving his hands so that the pistol also kept changing direction . The barrel had however been kept aimed at the ground . Officer PERSON described the man ’s posture as that of a cowboy who could start shooting at any moment . He had felt threatened to the point where he had decided to fire should the man point his pistol at him .

As far as he could recall , this situation had lasted for TIME , during which time he had called out to the man twice to drop his pistol . The man had not done so . Things had happened very quickly ; he estimated that the time from the moment he grabbed the man until the fatal shot had been CARDINAL or TIME .

Officer PERSON had seen the man suddenly react to something . Still in his cowboy - like position the man had made DATE turn to the left . Officer PERSON could not remember how long this had taken but the time involved had been very short . The man had raised his right arm with the pistol somewhat , in a manner in which he had not yet acted . This had caused Officer PERSON to think : “ Now I will shoot . ” Since the man was raising his hand and arm , Officer PERSON was convinced that he was about to shoot ; he had been building up tension in his right hand to pull the trigger of his service pistol when he had heard , on his right , a loud report that he had recognised as a pistol shot . He had immediately thought : “ [ Officer PERSON ] has got him . ” Officer PERSON had felt so threatened that he would have fired if Officer PERSON had not done so .

Officer PERSON had seen immediately that the man had been hit . The man had moved his upper torso somewhat . His knees had then buckled and he had fallen to the ground . He had dropped his pistol in falling . He had tried , unsuccessfully , to get up . Officers PERSON and PERSON had approached the man from CARDINAL sides while still keeping him covered . Having reached the man , Officer PERSON had put up his service pistol and grabbed the man by his shoulder . He had wished to prevent the man from getting up and possibly picking up the pistol . He had been sitting next to the man . The man had been lying with his back against Officer PERSON ’s knees . At that point Officer PERSON had seen Officer PERSON approaching from his right . He could not remember if Officer PERSON had still had his service pistol in his hand . Officer PERSON had pushed the man ’s pistol away with his foot so that the man could not reach it .

Using his CARDINAL - way radio , Officer PERSON had radioed the police station to ask for urgent assistance from the local health authority . Officers PERSON and PERSON had left the scene of the incident as it was until other police officers arrived . Officer PERSON had , however , loosened the man ’s clothing to see where he had been hit . He had been hit in the neck and his shirt was saturated with blood . Officer PERSON had tried to get him to give his name , but had received no answer . The man had gargled . He had been beyond help . He had died quickly .

After the other police officers had arrived , Officers Brons and ORG had been taken back to GPE police station where they stayed for some time , estimated by Officer PERSON as TIME . Officer PERSON had been required to hand in his service weapon . They had had talks with a number of fellow police officers , including Police Commissioner PERSON , the district chief of police ( districtschef ) and the self - help team ( zelfhulpteam ) .

Officer PERSON stated that the man himself had been in control of events ( zelf het scenario heeft bepaald ) . He had had every opportunity not to draw his weapon , or to drop it after doing so . Officer PERSON had shouted warnings to him repeatedly . He had not responded . Instead , he had stood in front of Officer PERSON in a threatening posture with a pistol ready for immediate use . Officer PERSON had had no other option but to draw his service weapon to protect himself . The situation had been so threatening that Officer PERSON would have fired himself to put the man out of action , thus eliminating the danger to himself and possibly others . As it was , that had proved unnecessary because Officer PERSON had fired first .

Ms Henna Emelita Rijssel , questioned on DATE , was a social worker living in GPE .

On DATE at around TIME she and her daughter , PERSON , had been walking home from the festival . In an underpass they had had to make way for a scooter driven by a person whom she described as a NORP youth without a crash helmet . They had seen him proceed on his way and then turn towards one of the doorways of a high - rise building . They had observed that he was driving unusually slowly but had paid no further attention . They had , however , seen the youth come out of the doorway and noticed the scooter inside . Although some distance away , they had had a good view ; it had not been dark yet .

They had seen the youth come out of the doorway and had seen a policeman run towards him . They had then noticed a police car which they had not seen or heard until then .

They had seen the youth holding his right hand inside his jacket or shirt . The hand had been on his stomach , just above his trouser band . They had decided to move closer because something was obviously happening .

Ms Rijssel had seen the youth walk towards the policeman . She had seen him raising his arms in a non - verbal “ What do you want ? ” gesture . She had heard no words spoken . The policeman had grabbed hold of the youth ’s arm and forced it behind his back . She had had the impression that the youth was being arrested . She had seen the policeman trying to push the youth with his face towards the wall . The youth , however , had torn himself loose .

She had then seen the youth again putting his hand inside his shirt , in the same gesture she had witnessed before . She had not seen him pull anything out ; she had not at any time seen the youth draw a firearm .

NORP The policeman had stayed where he was and had not moved closer to the youth . The youth had stepped sideways . PERSON had not seen the policeman draw his firearm .

Another policeman had come running up . He had stood still at a distance of QUANTITY . The youth had still had his hand inside his shirt near his trouser belt . She had then seen the second police officer draw his pistol and aim it at the youth . She had heard a shout of “ Put it down ” ( “ Leg neer ” ) , once , which in her opinion had come from the police officer who was keeping the youth covered . This had happened after the policeman had drawn his pistol on the youth . Immediately after the shout of “ Put it down ” she had heard one shot fired . The youth had collapsed immediately .

Ms Rijssel stated categorically that she had not at any time seen the youth aim a pistol or anything similar at the policeman . She remembered the youth holding his hand inside his shirt , close to his trouser belt . She was sure of that , despite the speed with which events had unfolded .

Immediately after the shot had been fired she had run towards the place where the youth had collapsed . She had shouted to the policemen : “ I saw what you did . That ’s a human being ” ( “ QUANTITY . PERSON is een mensenkind ” ) .

NORP The policeman had felt the youth ’s pulse . The youth ’s arm had fallen limp .

More police officers had arrived , including CARDINAL on a motorcycle who had asked her to make a statement . She had refused because she did not wish to make a statement that could be used against the youth and because her words could be misinterpreted . She had told CARDINAL police officers , a man and a woman , who were cordoning the area off , that they did not need to rope off such a wide area . CARDINAL of the police officers had accused her of trying to stir up trouble and had told her that she did not know what had caused the incident . She had replied that she was not aware of the cause of the incident but did know what had happened , and had asked if the police were not supposed to fire a warning shot before firing at a person . She might well have said more than that in her emotional state .

On DATE Ms Rijssel had returned to the place where the youth had been shot to leave some flowers . She had met the youth ’s family there and spoken with them . They had told her that they had retained the lawyer Mr PERSON and she had given them her telephone number . She had later been contacted by PERSON , who had asked her to make a statement to Chief PERSON .

PERSON , questioned on DATE , was a schoolgirl born in DATE and the daughter of GPE . The pair of them had been walking home from the GPE festival on TIME of DATE at TIME While walking through a pedestrian underpass they had been passed by a youth on a scooter . The youth had been dressed in black . He was dark - skinned , but not completely black . He had worn his hair flat . He had not been wearing a crash helmet . PERSON could not describe the scooter .

The youth had run the scooter off the path and across the grass towards the NORP building . PERSON had not seen him ride the scooter into the doorway .

PERSON mother had then said : “ Look , the police are here . ” Ms PERSON had seen a police officer standing in front of the building , close by the youth . She and her mother had then gone towards them . PERSON had seen the police officer trying to arrest the youth , grabbing hold of him and pushing his face against the wall . The youth , however , had torn himself loose . He had made a gesture with his arms as if to say : “ What do you want with me ? ”

NORP The youth had moved one of his hands , PERSON could not remember which , towards his trouser band . It had seemed as though he had a pistol there , but she had been sure it was a bluff .

A second police officer had come running . PERSON had heard “ Drop it ” shouted ; she remembered hearing it once . She had seen the QUANTITY police officers with drawn service pistols . She had seen the first police officer , the one who had tried to arrest the youth , with his pistol drawn but she had not seen him point it at the youth . She had not seen the youth with a pistol or anything like that .

The other police officer had also had his service pistol in his hand . He had aimed at the youth . She thought that the shot had been fired immediately after the shout of “ Drop it ” . After the shot the youth had turned around some way and collapsed . She had seen him drop something ; she thought it had been a mobile telephone . Later , having come closer to the scene of events , she had seen a mobile telephone lying near the youth ; she assumed that the youth had dropped it .

PERSON could not give an estimate of how far it had been from where she stood to the place where the youth had collapsed , but it had been some distance . Things had happened very quickly , as if in a flash .

NORP The official record states that the witness made her statement in the presence of her mother in view of her emotional state .

Mr PERSON Rij , questioned on DATE , was a schoolboy born in DATE and resident in the NORP building .

On DATE at TIME he had been at home with his father , in the lounge of their first - floor apartment . It had been a warm night and the windows had been open .

At some point he had heard someone shout “ Stand still ” once . No more than a second after that , he had heard a bang from the direction of the doorway which had sounded like a pistol shot . In view of the shout of “ Stand still ” , which was unlikely to have come from a criminal , he had concluded that the shot had been fired by police . He had wanted to go and watch , but his mother had not let him because she considered it in bad taste to take an interest in other people ’s misfortune . TIME his father had gone to take the dog out ; he had seen lots of police and someone lying underneath a sheet .

Mr PERSON , questioned on DATE , was a schoolboy born in DATE .

On DATE at TIME he and his father had been walking from the GPE festival towards the NORP building , where his father ’s girlfriend lived . They had noticed the presence of police on motorcycles , apparently looking for something or someone .

NORP Just before entering a pedestrian underpass , they had heard a sound identified by PERSON father as a pistol shot . It came from the direction of the NORP building . They had seen police going towards the NORP building but had been too far away to see what was happening .

On the way towards the building they had been stopped by police who were cordoning off the area .

Having entered the building through a different entrance , they had gone to the first floor and Mr ORG had looked down . He had seen a coloured youth with a bald head lying motionless in front of the entrance to the doorway . He had seen a small shiny pistol lying by the youth ’s feet . He had heard others say that they had initially thought that the youth had taken out a mobile telephone and that the police had fired mistaking it for a pistol . But it had definitely been a pistol .

Mr Oostburg and others had assumed that the youth had drawn a pistol and aimed it at the police and that the police had fired for that reason .

He had later seen the emergency services arrive . It had been apparent that the youth was dead because they had covered him with a white sheet .

Police Officer Boonstra was interviewed by Detective Chief PERSON on DATE .

He stated that he and his colleague Police Officer PERSON had been unaware of the fact that LOC was armed . He and Officer PERSON had been approached by a coloured youth , who had asked them to follow him and had run on . Since he and Officer PERSON had not immediately run after him , the youth had turned around and gestured to them to follow him . This had led them to assume that there was something the matter and they had followed . It had been Officer PERSON , who had been closer to the youth than Officer PERSON , who had spoken with him . It had also been Officer PERSON who had radioed through the licence plate number and possibly the colour of the scooter as well as the police ORG precise location and the direction in which they were heading with the youth , but he did not recall Officer PERSON giving a description of the thief .

After they had lost sight of the scooter , they had heard it reported by radio that there had been a shooting at the NORP building . Officers Boonstra and PERSON had gone there to see if they could be of assistance . Not realising that the person who had stolen the scooter was armed , they had not connected the shooting to the theft .

Only when they and the owner of the scooter had reached the scene of the shooting and the owner had recognised his vehicle did they ask him precisely what had happened . That had been when the owner of the scooter had told them that he had been forced at gunpoint to surrender control of the scooter . Officer PERSON had told him that he ought to have mentioned that earlier ( “ Dat had je wel eens eerder mogen zeggen ” ) .

Officer PERSON had told Officer PERSON later that he too had been unaware that the thief had been carrying a firearm and had been just as indignant at not having been told . Both officers counted themselves lucky not to have been fired at during the pursuit .

Mr PERSON was interviewed by Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON on DATE . He was asked to make a further statement as to when he had mentioned the firearm to Officer PERSON .

Mr PERSON stated that his scooter had been stolen from him at the GPE festival site on DATE between TIME A coloured youth had forced him to hand it over at gunpoint . He recognised the pistol on a photograph bearing the number QUANTITY ( see below for a description of the photographs ) as the pistol with which he had been threatened . He had noticed that the pistol was cocked and ready to fire . This had frightened him into giving up the scooter .

Spotting CARDINAL police officers , he had run up to them and asked them to follow him . They had not done so immediately but only after he had waved at them a second time . While running he had told them about the theft of the scooter and given them the scooter ’s insurance documents and a description of the scooter and the thief .

Mr PERSON had told the police officers about the firearm at the same time as he had handed the insurance papers to them .

When he had heard , over the police ORG CARDINAL - way radio , that there had been a shooting , he had immediately connected it with the theft of his scooter . He had then told the police officers that the thief had had a small silver - coloured pistol .

Mr PERSON , questioned by Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON on DATE , was a civil servant born in DATE .

On DATE at TIME he had been driving his car along the GPE . He had seen a marked police car following in his rear - view mirror . The police car had stopped suddenly , at which point a police officer had emerged and run in the direction of the doorway of the Huigenbos building . Thinking that something was happening , Mr ORG had decided to have a look for himself . He had parked his car , got out and walked towards the doorway towards which the policeman had headed . The street lights were on . It was TIME . He estimated the distance from where he was to the doorway of the NORP building to have been DATE QUANTITY .

He had seen a youth aged CARDINAL , dressed in dark - coloured clothing , emerge from the doorway . He had not seen any scooter in the doorway . There had been a policeman standing opposite the youth , separated by a distance of QUANTITY . The police officer had been pointing a pistol at the youth . The youth had been holding some dark - coloured object , which Mr ORG had not been able to make out , in his right hand and had been pointing it towards the police officer . The police officer had gestured to the youth with one hand , apparently ordering him to throw away whatever it was he had in his hand , while keeping the youth covered with his service pistol in his other hand . He had not heard anything shouted or said , the distance being too great . He had seen the youth throw away the unidentified object in his right hand .

While the first police officer was keeping the youth covered , PERSON ORG had seen a second police officer come running towards his colleague with the apparent intention of providing assistance . This second police officer had drawn his service pistol and had held it in both hands , levelled at the youth ’s head . He had heard a shot fired immediately . The shot had been fired after the youth had thrown the object away . Events had unfolded very quickly : the lapse of time between the youth throwing away the object and the firing of the shot had been a few fractions of a second . The youth had moved in the direction of the lamp post and then collapsed .

At that point panic had broken out . Police had arrived in cars and on motorcycles . After the shooting , more people had joined Mr ORG . The police had ordered them to leave ; PERSON and the others had left . Mr ORG had asked a police officer why no ambulance was being ordered . The police officer had replied : “ We will see about that later . ”

Having entered the NORP building and looked down onto the scene of events from the second floor , Mr ORG had seen the victim covered with a white sheet . He had not seen a pistol lying next to the body . He had heard from bystanders that the youth had thrown away a mobile telephone , but he had not seen that .

It had taken Mr ORG TIME to reach the second floor of the building . He had seen numbered markers being set out and photographs being taken . It appeared that the bystanders had not been meant to see that , because police officers were holding a large sheet above the body and taking photographs underneath . Mr ORG thought that the youth might at that moment still have been alive , because he had heard a rattling sound , as if the youth ’s throat was full of blood .

Mr ORG estimated the time needed for the ambulance to arrive at TIME or more . He had seen someone with medical equipment examine the victim , together with a person who appeared to be a public prosecutor .

NORP In Mr ORG ’s opinion , any threat had disappeared after the youth had thrown away the object . He had not witnessed what had happened before .

On DATE Detective Chief PERSON confronted Officer PERSON with the statement by PERSON to the effect that PERSON had thrown something away before the fatal shot . Officer PERSON denied this . In view of the threat posed by the thief , Officer PERSON ’s attention had been focused on the thief ’s hands . Until the thief drew the pistol , he had had nothing in them .

On DATE Detective Chief PERSON asked Officer PERSON for further information as to when he had become aware that the theft of the scooter had taken place at gunpoint .

Mr PERSON had told Officer PERSON that he had been pulled off the scooter but had not mentioned the fact that a firearm had been used . Both he and Officer PERSON had therefore assumed that only physical force had been used .

Mr PERSON had given Officer PERSON the scooter ’s insurance papers immediately and of his own motion and had at the same time given a description of the thief . Officers PERSON and NORP , joined by PERSON PERSON , had run after the thief . However , they had lost him . Officer PERSON had then passed on the thief ’s presumed direction of flight and the registration number via his CARDINAL - way radio .

At no time while they were running had he heard Mr PERSON say that the thief was armed . He had noticed , however , that Mr PERSON was frightened and spoke in a soft tone of voice . It was therefore quite possible that Mr PERSON had mentioned the fact but that he had not heard it while they were running .

Only after the report of the shooting had come through had Officer PERSON heard Mr PERSON say : “ He had a small silver - coloured pistol . ” They had then gone towards the NORP building . Officer PERSON had asked Mr PERSON : “ Why did you not tell us that before ? ” but Mr PERSON had not given a clear reply . He had appeared very upset .

Afterwards Officers PERSON and PERSON had reflected on their luck at not having been shot . Had Officer PERSON been told at an earlier stage that the thief had used a pistol to steal the scooter , he would have passed that information on immediately and before all else . In addition , he and Officer PERSON would not have run after the thief : their supervisory duties at the festival had required them to be unarmed themselves .

Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON confronted Officer PERSON with the statement by PERSON on DATE . Officer PERSON consented to being questioned without his counsel present .

Officer Bultstra considered it unlikely that Mr ORG could have parked his car and walked back to the place from which he claimed to have witnessed the events in such a short time . Officer PERSON himself had needed TIME to run QUANTITY from where the police car had been parked to LOC and Officer PERSON .

It appeared that Mr ORG had missed the struggle with PERSON ; he had not mentioned it in his statement . That would be consistent with the distance between where Mr ORG had parked his car and the scene of events .

It was incorrect that Officer PERSON had held his service weapon in one hand . It took CARDINAL hands to hold it in the defensive position . Officer PERSON had made gestures , but that had happened before PERSON drew his pistol .

NORP PERSON had had nothing in his hands until he had drawn his pistol . He had , however , not pointed it at Officer PERSON ; he had pointed it at the ground . He had held it in his hand continuously . He had definitely not thrown anything away or dropped anything . He had only let go of the pistol once Officer PERSON had shot him , but even then only as he collapsed .

Officer PERSON had held his CARDINAL - way radio set in his left hand as he had left the police car . He had kept hold of it until he dropped it . He did not remember when that had been , but it must have been no later than when he drew his service pistol because in the defensive position he had needed both his hands to hold it . He could not remember either whether he had already dropped the radio at the time of the struggle . He had , however , later seen it lying on the ground , level with ORG chest and QUANTITY away from him . He had left it there .

The ambulance had been called for immediately , not once but twice . Officer PERSON had not seen it arrive . By that time he and Officer PERSON were being taken to the police station , having spent TIME at the scene of the events .

Officer PERSON had heard LOC death rattle . That had stopped already before he and Officer PERSON had left . It had appeared to Officer PERSON that PERSON lungs were filling with blood , but Officer PERSON could do nothing to stop that .

Detective Chief PERSON decided to question Mr PERSON den PERSON again in the light of the statement of PERSON ORG . This he did on DATE .

Mr Van den ORG reiterated that he had been focused on the coloured man with the firearm . He had clearly seen the coloured man hold a firearm in his right hand , which he had pointed downwards . The coloured man ’s other hand had been empty .

Mr PERSON den PERSON had not witnessed the actual shooting , having taken cover behind the balustrade . He had looked to see what had happened right after the shot had been fired . This had been only a fraction of a second later . He had not seen the coloured man ’s pistol fall to the ground . When PERSON PERSON den PERSON had looked , the pistol had been lying on the ground , next to the coloured man , as shown on a photograph taken at the scene of the incident . The pistol shown on another photograph was very similar to that which Mr PERSON den PERSON had seen in the coloured man ’s hand .

For the remainder , Mr PERSON den PERSON confirmed his earlier statement .

Police Officer PERSON was questioned by Detective Chief PERSON on DATE . He had been driving a police car with a police dog along the GPE . Officer PERSON had heard that a scooter had been stolen at the GPE festival and had heard the description given of the scooter and the thief . He was looking for the thief . There was no information that the theft had taken place at gunpoint .

Officer PERSON had been passed by another police car . He had recognised the driver as Officer PERSON . He had seen the police car pull up and the passenger emerge .

He had parked his car and got out . In so doing he had seen Officer PERSON get out of his car . Going around the back of the car to get out the police dog , Officer PERSON had heard a pistol shot from the direction of the NORP building . The dog had reacted furiously to the sound . It had been necessary to handle the dog with particular care , because in its excitement the dog might have attacked people .

He had met Officer PERSON and had asked him what had happened . Officer PERSON had replied that a pistol had been aimed at the police and a shot had been fired by the police , but had not named the officer who had fired the shot .

Officer PERSON had walked up to the victim lying on the ground , stopping at a distance of QUANTITY metres because of the unpredictable reaction of the dog . The victim had been motionless , except for opening and closing his mouth a few times . Officer PERSON had heard no death rattle .

When Officer PERSON arrived at the scene , there had been only the QUANTITY police officers and the victim . He had not seen anyone else close by . The dog would have reacted if anyone else had been present .

PERSON Helena Hup was interviewed by Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON on CARDINAL DATE . She had been the driver of the ambulance which had been sent out to collect PERSON after he had been shot .

At TIME the ambulance crew had received an instruction to drive to the NORP building because someone had been shot . The ambulance had left at TIME and arrived on the scene at TIME , well within the time allowed , which was TIME .

Ms Hup and the other member of the ambulance crew , Mr PERSON , had taken out the stretcher , which was given to police officers . Ms GPE and Mr PERSON had then taken their equipment and had run towards the victim . There had been a small silver - coloured pistol lying next to him , which she and Mr PERSON had had to avoid touching while doing their work .

Ms Hup had not heard the victim ’s death rattle or him make any other sound . She had assisted Mr PERSON as he gave first aid . They had connected the victim to the heart monitor . Mr PERSON had checked eye pupil reflexes by shining a light into each eye but had got no reaction and had noted the absence of a pulse and breathing . From the information thus obtained Mr PERSON had concluded that the victim had died on the spot .

Ms Hup and Mr PERSON had seen the wound where the bullet had entered , which was in the neck on the right . They had not seen the exit wound .

PERSON and Mr PERSON had then covered the body with a white sheet . They had then spent some time talking with police officers . They had not removed the body , which had been picked up later by a special vehicle .

Mr PERSON , a paramedic , had been the other member of the crew of the ambulance driven by PERSON . Detective Chief PERSON questioned him on DATE .

At TIME they had received instructions to go to the NORP building where someone had been shot . They had been given a route to take . They had left at TIME The blue flashing light and the siren had been switched on continuously . They had arrived at the scene at TIME

Ms Hup and he had run quickly towards the victim . Police officers had carried the stretcher , he and PERSON the other equipment .

A police officer had told him that the youth had been shot . He had seen the entry wound in the neck but no exit wound . There had been a small pistol lying close by the victim . Mr PERSON had not noticed a CARDINAL - way radio lying on the ground .

The victim had had no signs of life . There had not been any rattle . Mr PERSON had checked his vital functions and had noted the absence of any heart function ( checked with a heart monitor ) or pupil reaction . This , combined with the gunshot wound , had led Mr PERSON to conclude that the youth was dead . After conferring briefly with CARDINAL of the police officers present and telling him that there was nothing more to be done , he and Ms Hup had covered the body with a sheet .

Mr PERSON and PERSON had then returned to the ambulance and had reported themselves ready for further duty at TIME The body had been removed later .

Mr PERSON , whom Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON questioned on DATE , was a police forensic investigator ( technisch rechercheur ) . He had been on call on TIME of DATE . He had been instructed to go to the NORP building where there had been a shooting . He had arrived after the ambulance had left . On his arrival at the scene , he had seen a white sheet covering the victim and a pistol lying on the ground .

Mr Pel and a colleague , Mr Popping , had identified items of evidence and marked them with numbered markers before photographing them . He had also examined the body of the victim and in particular his hands for traces of gunshot residue ( schotrestbemonstering ) . This had required the lifting of the sheet covering the body .

Ms PERSON was questioned by Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON on DATE . She was a maternal great - aunt of PERSON .

On DATE an aunt of PERSON had told her that ORG had stolen a scooter and had been shot dead for that reason by the police . TIME , CARDINAL , she and other relatives of the deceased had held a prayer meeting at the place where it had happened .

During this prayer meeting , CARDINAL persons were presented to her who had allegedly witnessed the events . They had told her that , when driving by in a car , they had seen a parked police car with the doors open , one policeman standing near the NORP building and another policeman running in the same direction . They had seen a youth , who had apparently come out of the doorway , walking with his hands raised . She had not been told how high he had raised his arms , but they had told her that he had raised them . They had not told her of any struggle between the youth and the police officer . They had not told her that the first police officer had kept the youth covered with his service pistol . The second police officer , the one who had come running , had shot the youth down . They had not seen the youth with any firearm ; they had been definite about that . They had seen the youth being hit and collapsing . They had seen him covered with a sheet .

NORP Some persons present had mentioned a mobile telephone which the police had said was a pistol .

The CARDINAL persons who had said that they had witnessed the shooting had been evasive when asked whether they were prepared to make statements to the police . They had been more willing to talk to a lawyer . An appointment had been made for this purpose with Mr Hamer , the applicants’ representative in the proceedings now pending before the ORG , but they had failed to turn up . PERSON had been told that they had gone to GPE .

These CARDINAL individuals were NORP who spoke limited NORP and LANGUAGE . PERSON had no idea why they were so reluctant to cooperate fully .

Detective Chief PERSON interviewed Mr ORG a second time on CARDINAL DATE .

Mr ORG repeated that he had not witnessed any struggle between the victim and the first police officer .

NORP Asked whether he had seen a policeman with a dog , he answered that he had not paid attention to anything other than what was happening where the victim lay . He had , however , seen police officers with dogs ; he did not remember how many . There had also been civilians with dogs . No police officer with a dog had passed close by him as he was standing still witnessing events from a distance .

Mr ORG remembered a police officer telling him that “ they ” – meaning the police – would decide when the ambulance would come ; that although the victim could no longer talk , “ they ” could ; and that there were other wounded persons , who had fled .

Mr ORG had seen NORP and had been told that they had seen everything . However , they would not cooperate because they were members of a criminal organisation .

On DATE Detective Chief PERSON interviewed the applicants . They told him that they were not aware that ORG had had a pistol and could not imagine this to be the case . PERSON had , however , possessed a mobile telephone , which was nowhere to be found . The third applicant also told Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON that he had heard of CARDINAL NORP who had witnessed the shooting , but who were unwilling to provide information because they were residing illegally in the GPE .

An autopsy was performed on ORG body on DATE by a pathologist at ORG ( ORG ) in ORG . The pathologist drew up a detailed report , according to which ORG had been hit by CARDINAL bullet in the neck area . The bullet had ruptured major blood vessels and organs , including the brachiocephalic ( innominate ) artery and vein , and the right lung . These injuries had led to ORG death .

According to the report of the toxicological examination ( dated DATE ) , a blood sample taken from ORG body contained QUANTITY of alcohol per litre , a urine sample contained QUANTITY , the vitreous humour of the left eye contained QUANTITY and that of the right eye contained QUANTITY . The presence of amphetamines in the urine sample was initially suspected but could not be confirmed by subsequent testing . Other substances found in the urine sample included psilocine ( an alkaloid compound found in certain hallucinogenic mushrooms – genus DATE known colloquially as “ magic mushrooms ” ) . The concentration of psilocine in the blood was too low to be determined .

No drawings or photographs were appended to the autopsy report as contained in the investigation file .

On DATE Detective Chief PERSON telephoned ORG enquiring after the weather conditions on TIME DATE . He was given the following information :

“ Warm DATE and TIME ; somewhat overcast

TIME

TIME Twilight

TIME Dark ”

On DATE Detective Chief PERSON interviewed the DATE Miss PERSON . She confirmed what she had stated to members of the mobile special operations unit on TIME DATE . She added that she had only looked outside after hearing the bang . PERSON was already lying on the ground . She had not seen the police officers properly . She had gone back up , glanced down from the seventh floor and gone inside .

Detective Chief PERSON had returned to the scene of the incident with GPE and PERSON and with Mr ORG and his wife after taking their respective statements . They had shown him where they had been standing and Detective Chief PERSON had paced the distance to the lamp post where ORG had lain . This had been QUANTITY in the case of GPE and PERSON and QUANTITY in the case of PERSON and PERSON .

Detective Chief PERSON had also gone back with Officer PERSON , who had shown him where he thought Officer PERSON had parked the car . This was TIME away from the lamp post . He had asked Officer PERSON to run that distance and timed him with a stopwatch . It had taken him TIME . Detective Chief PERSON noted in his report that the distance from where the car was parked had actually been measured on TIME of the shooting and found to be QUANTITY .

Senior Detective PERSON , a police officer serving at GPE police station , officially seized the body where it lay at TIME and provisionally identified it as LOC from identity documents found in his clothing . According to a further official record , also by Senior Detective PERSON , the body was shown to PERSON , PERSON mother , and Mr PERSON , his cousin , on DATE at CARDINAL p.m. They both recognised the body and identified it as ORG .

A report drawn up by forensic investigators ( technisch rechercheurs ) PERSON and Jan Popping describes the action taken following the incident to secure information and evidence at the scene of the shooting . It records the location of the body . Next to it Officers PERSON and Popping had found a Beretta CARDINAL B pistol , calibre QUANTITY , with the hammer cocked . They had also found a spent cartridge . They had found the scooter in the doorway . Next to the doorway there was a staircase , closed from the outside by tall windows . In CARDINAL of these windows they had found a bullet hole . Under the bullet hole they had found a bullet lying on the floor . No ricochet marks had been found in the stairway . This had made it impossible to determine the bullet ’s precise trajectory . CARDINAL photographs were appended to this record , photocopies of which – in black and white – are contained in the ORG ’s file .

On DATE Police Superintendent PERSON of the GPE / GPE police drew up a record describing the events which he himself had witnessed . On TIME DATE PERSON had been out in uniform , in charge of the police detachment monitoring the GPE festival . At TIME he had heard on his CARDINAL - way radio that CARDINAL surveillance officers were pursuing a thief who had stolen a scooter . From other messages he concluded that other officers had also set off in pursuit , including Officers Brons and Bultstra in a police car . At around TIME had heard that ORG were pursuing the thief in the direction of the Huigenbos building . Shortly afterwards , he had heard that there had been shooting and that an ambulance was needed . PERSON had immediately made his way to the NORP building . Upon arrival , he had seen a man lying on the ground , wounded in the neck . He had seen a silver - coloured pistol lying on the ground , QUANTITY from the man ’s feet . He had also spotted a police CARDINAL - way radio lying on the ground , QUANTITY from the body at hip level . The ambulance had arrived at TIME and its crew had emerged with a stretcher . Shortly afterwards , someone had thrust a CARDINAL - way radio set into ORG hands , telling him that it was Officer Bultstra ’s . ORG had understood that this was the set which he had seen lying on the ground .

The file contains an official record of the seizure of a tape - recording made of police CARDINAL - way radio conversations on TIME DATE and a transcript . According to the transcript , Officer PERSON reported the theft of the scooter , giving a description of it and the thief . This report is answered by an unknown police officer on a motorcycle and Officer PERSON . Officer PERSON reports , using his CARDINAL - way radio , that a scooter matching the description given has been spotted . The police officer who reports that he has fired his weapon and requests an ambulance is stated to be Officer PERSON .

Another official record states that video recordings made by a closed - circuit television system in the ORG restaurant on PERSON , shortly before the time of the shooting , show PERSON misbehaving .

Further official records drawn up by police officers describe personal effects found on ORG body – clothing , jewellery , the contents of his pockets DATE and their return to his next - of - kin , the return to PERSON of the scooter taken from him by PERSON , and the opening of a temporary document register for the case .

The file also contains a printout giving the results of the firearms training undergone by Officer PERSON in DATE . It shows that during this period Officer PERSON had fired CARDINAL practice rounds , scoring an average PERCENT hits , and had undergone refresher training on DATE .

The file contains no record of any examination of the service weapons carried by ORG at the relevant time or of the spent cartridge and the bullet found at the scene of the incident .

On DATE the public prosecutor wrote to the parents of PERSON informing them that she had come to the conclusion that the shooting had been an act of self - defence and had therefore decided not to bring a prosecution against Officer PERSON . On DATE Mr PERSON wrote to the public prosecutor announcing the intention of the third applicant to seek a court order for the prosecution of Officer PERSON .

The applicants were granted access to the investigation file . On DATE they applied for such an order to ORG ( gerechtshof ) by means of a complaint about the failure to bring a prosecution ( LAW ( Wetboek van Strafvordering ) – see below ) . The application was signed by PERSON as the ORG representative and by each of the applicants individually . They stated that the information available did not admit of the conclusion that the shooting of Moravia Ramsahai by Officer PERSON was sufficiently justified . They also pointed out that certain key parts of the investigation after the shooting had been carried out by the GPE / GPE police force – that is , Officer PERSON ’s direct colleagues DATE and argued on that ground that the investigation had not been “ effective ” and “ independent ” . Further complaints addressed the failure to question ORG until DATE after the event , the failure to question all the police officers who had arrived at the scene after the shooting about what had been said by ORG , the failure to determine the precise trajectory of the bullet ( which the applicants submitted would have been possible ) , the failure to secure gunshot residue samples from the hands of ORG , the failure to conduct a reconstruction of the incident , and the absence from the autopsy report of drawings or photographs showing the entrance and exit wounds caused by the bullet . Reference was also made to Police Commissioner PERSON ’s statement , as reported in the newspaper PERSON , to the effect that he would not allow an independent inquiry , and to the fact that ORG ( hoofdofficier van justitie ) of GPE retained overall responsibility for the investigation and any decision to prosecute .

On DATE the Acting Procurator General ( plaatsvervangend procureur - generaal ) at ORG submitted an opinion in response to the ORG complaint about the failure to prosecute Officer PERSON . He considered it sufficiently clear from the evidence available that Officer PERSON had acted in self - defence and was not convinced that Public Prosecutor PERSON , who had decided not to prosecute , was in any way biased . Although perhaps some might have preferred the non - prosecution decision to have been taken by an official body further removed from the GPE police , that was not a wish which needed to be taken into account by the courts . It followed that the applicants’ complaint of DATE was unfounded .

On DATE , Mr Hamer , having been informed of the date on which a hearing would be held to consider the ORG said complaint , wrote to ORG asking for the hearing to be public .

On DATE Mr PERSON wrote to the Acting Procurator General at ORG , complaining about the failure of the registry of that court to provide him with copies of the complete case file and asking for this failure to be redressed . He made a similar request to the President of ORG .

The Registrar of ORG replied on DATE , pointing out that the question to be decided was whether to hold a public hearing ; in such circumstances it was appropriate for participants in the hearing to be allowed to view the file , but for reasons of caution copies were refused . By a separate letter of the same date , the Registrar informed Mr Hamer that the hearing in question would not be public , but that Mr Hamer could raise the issue at the hearing if he so desired .

The Acting Procurator General replied on DATE that he was not an appellate body competent to review decisions of the Registrar of ORG to withhold documents . In any event , Mr PERSON had been able to see all available documents .

NORP The applicants’ complaint under LAW was heard in chambers by a “ judge delegate ” ( raadsheer - commissaris ) on DATE . Mr PERSON made extensive oral submissions on the applicants’ behalf .

On DATE , with the consent of the Advocate General in charge of the case , Mr PERSON wrote to the judge presiding over the chamber of ORG which was to hear the ORG complaint about the failure to prosecute , referring to an alleged inconsistency between the statements of ORG and the statements of other police officers , as reported in the press release , which in his submission would justify a further criminal investigation .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG complaint against the public prosecutor ’s decision not to prosecute . In its reasoning it endorsed the decision of the “ judge delegate ” not to hold a public hearing . It found that , in the light of the applicable legal provisions , it would go beyond the powers of the judiciary to develop the law if a hearing , the purpose of which was to decide whether a particular person should be put on public trial , were itself held in public . Moreover , that would defeat the purpose of the applicable legal provisions .

As to the merits of the case , ORG was satisfied that Officer PERSON had acted to avert a threat of harm by a deadly weapon and had acted in legitimate self - defence . It based this finding on the statements of ORG and Mr Van den Heuvel . It added that if there had been more time , it might have been possible to avoid inflicting a lethal wound ; however , an immediate reaction had been required in the circumstances , as had subsequently been borne out by the fact that PERSON pistol had had a round chambered and its hammer cocked in the firing position . This conclusion was reinforced by the available information that DATE he had stolen a vehicle at gunpoint and used the pistol in a threatening way on CARDINAL other occasion , as well as by the retrospective finding of traces of alcohol and the active ingredient of hallucinogenic mushrooms in LOC body . The other witness statements available were either plainly incorrect ( as in the case of Mr ORG and GPE ) , or irrelevant , or did not materially affect the above findings .

Although ORG agreed with the applicants that a reconstruction would have been desirable , it found nothing to suggest that the evidence available had not been investigated conscientiously . Nor could the fact , as alleged by the applicants , that they or their counsel had been denied access to certain documents lead to any different conclusion .

At the time of the events complained of , the relevant provisions of LAW provided as follows .

“ CARDINAL . If the perpetrator of a punishable act is not prosecuted , or if the prosecution is not pursued to a conclusion , then anyone with a direct interest [ rechtstreeks belanghebbende ] may lodge a written complaint with ORG within whose area of jurisdiction the decision has been taken not to prosecute or not to pursue the prosecution to a conclusion .

“ CARDINAL . ORG shall not take its decision without first having heard representations from the complainant , or at least after having properly summoned the complainant ... ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG may summon the person whose prosecution is being sought in order to afford him the opportunity to present observations on the request made in the statement of complaint and the grounds on which it is based . Such summons shall either be accompanied by a copy of the statement of complaint or contain an indication of the facts to which the complaint relates .

No order of the kind referred to in Article GPE shall be given unless and until the person whose prosecution is being sought has been heard by ORG , or has at least been properly summoned . ”

“ CARDINAL . The complainant and the person whose prosecution is being sought may be assisted before judges sitting in chambers . They may be represented by counsel ...

NORP The President of ORG shall ... allow the complainant and the person whose prosecution is being sought , as well as their counsel or authorised representatives [ gemachtigden ] , to inspect the case file if a request is made to that effect . Inspection shall take place in the manner determined by the President . The President may , of his own motion or at the request of PERSON , exempt particular documents from inspection in the interests of privacy , the investigation , the prosecution of criminal acts , or on significant general - interest grounds . ”

“ The person whose prosecution is being sought shall not be obliged to answer questions put to him in chambers . He shall be so informed before the hearing begins and that fact shall be mentioned in the official record . ”

“ CARDINAL . If the complaint falls within ORG jurisdiction , the complainant can be admitted [ de klager ontvankelijk is ] , and if ORG finds that a prosecution ought to have been brought or pursued to a conclusion , ORG shall order the prosecution to be brought or pursued in respect of the fact to which the complaint relates .

ORG may also refuse to give such an order for reasons relating to the general interest .

NORP The order may also include the direction [ last ] that the public prosecutor shall make the request referred to in LAW [ namely , a request to the investigating judge [ rechter - commissaris ] to initiate or continue a preliminary judicial investigation [ gerechtelijk vooronderzoek ] ] or that the person whose prosecution is being sought shall be summoned for trial . The first - mentioned order may also be given by ORG if the public prosecutor has already had the person whose prosecution is being sought officially notified of the decision of closure of a preliminary judicial investigation or if the time - limit prescribed in LAW has already expired .

NORP In all other cases the Court of Appeal shall ... dismiss the complaint . ”

“ CARDINAL . Reasons shall be given for any decision taken in chambers . If a public hearing in chambers is prescribed , such decision shall be delivered in open court .

Unless otherwise provided , the decision shall be notified to the suspect and the other participants in the proceedings without delay . ”

At the time of the events complained of , the relevant provisions of ORG ( Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie ) provided as follows .

“ ORG shall have exclusive responsibility for upholding the laws , prosecuting all criminal acts and ensuring the execution of all criminal judgments . ... ”

“ Officials of ORG shall follow the orders given to them in the course of their official duties , in the name of the Monarch , by the competent authority . ”

“ ... [ P]ublic prosecutors and acting public prosecutors shall , in their official duties , report to the Head of the public prosecution department [ parket ] in which they carry out their duties . ”

Relevant provisions of LAW provided as follows .

“ CARDINAL . The Procurator General at ORG shall , within the area of jurisdiction of ORG to which he is appointed , ensure the proper investigation of the criminal acts which are triable by the regional courts [ arrondissementsrechtbanken ] or the district courts [ kantongerechten ] . ...

To that end , he shall give orders to the Heads of the public prosecution departments appointed to the regional courts . ”

“ CARDINAL . NORP The public prosecutor shall be charged with the investigation of criminal acts which are triable by the regional court to which he is appointed and by the district courts within the area of that regional court ’s jurisdiction , as well as the investigation , within the area of that regional court ’s jurisdiction , of criminal acts triable by other regional courts or district courts .

To that end , he shall give orders to the other persons charged with [ such ] investigation . ... ”

LAW ( Politiewet ) , in its relevant parts , provides as follows .

“ CARDINAL . If the police act in a municipality to maintain public order and to carry out their task of assisting the public [ hulpverleningstaak ] , they shall be under the authority of the burgomaster .

NORP The burgomaster shall be empowered to give the police officers directions in carrying out the tasks referred to in the first paragraph . ”

“ CARDINAL . If the police act to maintain legal order through criminal law enforcement , or carry out tasks in support of the administration of justice , they shall be under the authority of the public prosecutor .

NORP The public prosecutor shall be empowered to give the police officers directions in carrying out the tasks referred to in the first paragraph . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides as follows :

“ A police officer appointed to carry out the tasks of the police force shall be authorised to use force in the lawful exercise of his duties when it is justified by the purpose thereby intended to be served , also taking into account the dangers involved in such use of force , and when that purpose can not otherwise be served . Use of force shall be preceded , if possible , by a warning . ”

At the relevant time , the Standing Orders for the Police , ORG and officers invested with special investigative powers ( PERSON , de Koninklijke Marechaussee en de buitengewone opsporingsambtenaar ) provided as follows .

“ CARDINAL . Use of a firearm , other than a firearm suitable for automatic fire or long - range precision fire , is permitted only :

( a ) to arrest a person who poses a firearms hazard [ vuurwapengevaarlijk persoon ] ;

( b ) to arrest a person who is trying to evade , or has evaded , being arrested or brought before the competent legal authority [ die zich aan zijn aanhouding of voorgeleiding tracht te ontrekken of heeft onttrokken ] and who is suspected or has been convicted of a serious indictable offence [ ernstig misdrijf ] which must in addition be considered a serious disruption of legal order .

In the cases referred to in the first paragraph under ( a ) and ( b ) , the firearm shall not be used if the identity of the person to be arrested is known and it may reasonably be assumed that delaying the arrest will not jeopardise legal order in a manner that may be considered unacceptable . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Immediately before he uses a firearm , other than a firearm suitable for automatic fire or long - range precision fire , the officer shall issue a warning , in a loud voice or in another form that can not be misunderstood , that he will open fire if the order is not followed without delay . Such a warning , which may if necessary be replaced by a warning shot , shall be omitted only if the circumstances do not admit of it .

A warning shot shall be fired in such a way as to avoid , as far as possible , endangering persons or property . ”

While on duty , uniformed police in the GPE may be armed with a semi - automatic pistol . Police officers are required to maintain proficiency in the use of their firearms , failing which they are not allowed to carry any .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . For tasks determined by the Minister of ORG , after consultation with the Minister of ORG , the Procurator General shall have special - duty police officers [ bijzondere ambtenaren van politie ] ... at his disposal .

NORP The Minister of Justice shall be charged with the management of the police officers referred to in the first paragraph . These police officers shall ... be appointed , promoted , suspended and dismissed by the Minister of Justice . ”

According to Rule CARDINAL of the Rules governing the organisation of the operational divisions of ORG ( Organisatieregeling dienstonderdelen PERSON ) , ORG ( Rijksrecherche ) is a nationwide service placed directly under the primary collective responsibility of ORG at ORG . Its day - to - day affairs are managed by a Director who reports to ORG ( Rule CARDINAL ) .

The ORG judgment received considerable media attention in the GPE . On DATE CARDINAL members of ORG ( ORG ) of ORG , PERSON and PERSON , asked the Minister of ORG to state his views on the ORG judgment and the resulting need for changes in domestic law and practice .

NORP The Minister of ORG ’s reply was received in ORG on DATE ( ORG , PERSON – ORG of ORG , Appendix to the parliamentary record DATE , no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ) . The following is an excerpt from it :

“ CARDINAL . It is important to note that there is no question of a substantive violation of LAW ; the ORG is unanimous in finding that the police officer acted in self - defence . The ORG concludes that there has been a procedural violation of LAW on CARDINAL points : the ( excessively ) late involvement of ORG in the investigation and the fact that the decision under LAW not to prosecute the policemen involved was not [ given in ] public . As to the involvement of ORG , a few matters should be noted . ORG does not criticise the position of ORG in relation to the police as such ; it finds explicitly that that position is consonant with the independence required by LAW . However , in this case the investigation into the shooting was carried out during TIME by police officers belonging to the same police force as the police officer who had fired the fatal shot . Only afterwards was the investigation taken over by ORG . The ORG finds that the ( independent ) ORG became involved in the investigation too late in this specific case . Since the decision of ORG of DATE in the GPE case ( unpublished ) , the duty system of ORG has been improved [ aangescherpt ] , so that they can be at the place of the incident sooner . ORG now reaches the scene of events within , on average , TIME and a half after the incident is reported . It is therefore no longer possible to conclude that the procedures now followed in the GPE as regards investigations into fatal shootings involving police officers are not compatible with the LAW . I am therefore of the opinion that structural changes in the existing procedures are not needed . It is , however , useful to make the procedure more precise on some points , in particular as regards the involvement of ORG . To this end , ORG General [ College van procureursgeneraal ] is drawing up a new ‘ Instruction on how to act in the event of the use of force by a ( police ) officer’ [ PERSON handelwijze bij geweldsaanwending ( politie ) ambtenaar , hereafter ‘ the Instruction’ ] , to replace [ an earlier instruction ] . This ORG will explicitly provide that ORG shall be informed immediately [ terstond ] in cases where there has been use of force by a police officer , and that the duty officer concerned from ORG shall proceed to the scene of the incident as quickly as possible . Until he arrives , the local police force shall only act to freeze the situation , for example by cordoning off the scene of the incident . However , the local force will , in principle , not carry out investigative measures . This ORG is expected to enter into force early next year .

NORP In a decision such as provided for in LAW , the complainant ’s interest in publicity is opposed to the interest in secrecy of the person whose prosecution is sought . The starting point , for the present , is that during the phase in which a decision has yet to be taken as to whether a person is to be prosecuted , that person ’s interest in avoiding publicity outweighs the complainant ’s interest in publicity . Since a decision under LAW does not concern a ‘ criminal GPE in the sense of LAW , the requirement of publicity for such decisions does not flow from that Article . In the relevant judgment of ORG , the requirement of publicity is however derived from LAW . The ORG takes the view that the decision should have been given in public , in view of the seriousness of the case and the fact that it concerned a person invested with public authority . It will not be possible to give effect to the judgment without amending LAW .

At the moment we are still examining the question whether to introduce a request for referral to ORG under LAW . I will inform you of the outcome DATE .

The ORG finds that ORG position in relation to the police is sufficiently independent . The fact that a public prosecutor is dependent on the police for the provision of information and support does not affect this finding . The ORG notes in addition that the actions of the public prosecutor are subject to independent supervision by the courts . In this case the public prosecutor in charge of the case was a public prosecutor with particular responsibility for the area within which the work was carried out at GPE police station , at which station the police officer concerned worked . I share the ORG ’s view that it is undesirable ( from the point of view of independence ) for a public prosecutor to maintain excessively close ties with the police force to which the police officers concerned belong . In that connection I refer to the said ORG . This ORG will provide that in cases such as the present the investigation will in no circumstances be led by a public prosecutor who maintains close ties with the district to which the police officers belong , for example the district public prosecutor . I note in addition that ORG [ PERSON ] gives advice on the follow - up to investigations into police use of firearms actually involving firing and where investigations have actually been carried out by ORG . ORG is obliged to submit to ORG the decision he proposes to take . In that way a kind of ‘ second GPE is built into such cases . ”

The new Instruction of the Board of Procurators General , which the Minister announced for DATE , was in fact published on DATE ( Official Gazette – Staatscourant DATE , no . CARDINAL ) . ORG General constitutes the highest body of ORG and is answerable , through its chairman , to the Minister of ORG .

An explanatory note states that the ORG is intended as a follow - up to , inter alia , the ORG judgment in ORG and Others , in order better to clarify the investigative tasks of ORG and the role of the local police force .

The ORG covers not only police officers but also other officials with police powers , including ORG ( ORG marechaussee ) and members of the armed forces exercising police duties . It is applicable in cases involving the use of firearms causing death or injury and other cases in which the use of force has resulted in death or serious injury .

Whenever an incident has taken place to which the ORG applies , the investigation will be carried out by ORG . The regional police force is to inform that department of the incident immediately . The duty officer from ORG will proceed to the scene of the incident as quickly as possible . The local police are to take any necessary urgent measures , such as cordoning off the area concerned , caring for any casualties and taking down the names of any witnesses ; they are not themselves to carry out any investigations unless and to the extent that their involvement is unavoidable .

Any investigations that can not be carried out by ORG itself are done by ORG Bureau PERSON ) of the police region concerned or by members of a neighbouring police force . For any technical investigations the assistance of forensic investigators from another police region will be sought .

The presumption is that a police officer who needs to resort to force in the exercise of his duty is normally entitled to claim justification through superior orders or self - defence . A police officer in such a position is therefore not viewed as a criminal suspect unless it is clear at the outset that there is reasonable doubt on this point ; he will be questioned as a witness , though under caution that he is not obliged to incriminate himself .

The Chief Public Prosecutor , who bears the ultimate responsibility for the investigation and the decision whether to bring a prosecution , is required to ensure that the investigation is not under any circumstances supervised by a public prosecutor who maintains close links with the police unit to which any police officers concerned belong ; every appearance of a lack of independence is to be avoided .

If the violent incident has involved the use of a firearm , then before deciding whether or not to bring a prosecution ORG is required to submit the decision he proposes to take and the supporting documents to ORG , which will give an advisory opinion within DATE .