Briefing :: Listening to Victims of Child Sex Trafficking


Commission on Security & Cooperation in Europe:  U.S. Helsinki Commission

Listening To Victims of Child Sex Trafficking

Committee Members Present:
Representative Christopher Smith (R-NJ);
Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN)

“Mr. B”,
Survivor of Child Trafficking in Amsterdam, Netherlands

Klaas Langendoen,
Former Chief of Criminal Intelligence Services for the Netherlands,
Private Investigator

Adèle van der Plas,
Bakker Schut & Van Der Plas

The Hearing Was Held in 2255 Rayburn House Office Building, 
Washington, D.C., Representative Christopher Smith, CSCE Moderating 

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Transcript by
Federal News Service
Washington, D.C. 
REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER SMITH (R-NJ):  The Commission will come to order, 
and I want to wish everybody a good afternoon and welcome to our briefing on 
“Listening to Victims of Child Sex Trafficking.”  The sex trafficking and abuse 
of children is one of the most despicable, violent crimes on the face of the 
Earth, shattering the lives of the victims as well as their families, a crime 
from which the victims often cannot recover.  And when they do so – and that’s 
rarely – they do so with great difficulty.  The traffickers and abusers rely on 
their ability to frighten the child into silence, or the reluctance of adults 
to listen when children speak.  They also use their own reputation, standing 
and/or power in the community to prevent allegations from being properly 
considered and investigated.  

As we have seen recently in the tragic Sandusky case, child sex abuse case at 
Penn State, many sexually-abused children do not find a way to speak until they 
are adults.  But when they do so, and are heard, others find the courage to 
come forward, putting the traffickers and the abusers behind bars and bringing 
an end to a cycle of broken lives.  

It is imperative that the justice system be ready to listen to allegations, and 
to thoroughly investigate allegations, no matter when they are raised and no 
matter who is accused.  This year’s Trafficking In Persons report – and I would 
note parenthetically, that in 2000, I was the author, the prime author, of the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Act, as well as two subsequent reauthorizations 
of the TPVA (sic), and one of the provisions of that legislation established 
the annual TIP report, and the ratings of countries either Tier 1 to Tier 3.  
What the TIP report noted that, although the law – for this year – although the 
law in the Netherlands prescribes maximum sentences ranging from eight to 18 
years imprisonment for individuals convicted of human trafficking, and that 
these penalties are sufficiently stringent and commensurate with those 
prescribed for other serious crimes, such as rape, the laws are not being 

According to the report, and I quote, “The average sentences imposed on 
convicted traffickers continued to be less than two years” – 21 months, to be 
exact – 21 months for destroying a woman’s soul and body in the enslavement in 
a brothel.  Nine convicted trafficking offenders received community service or 
a fine as punishment.  The leader of a major Turkish-German woman trafficking 
organization was sentenced to seven years and nine months imprisonment for 
having forced at least 120 women into prostitution.  That is just one month in 
jail for every life destroyed.  And, by the way, the court let him out on bail 
and, to no surprise, he fled to Turkey, so he is currently not even serving the 
tiny sentence he received.  That leaves me speechless.  What is going on here?  
Do the courts in the Netherlands take human trafficking seriously?  

This afternoon, we are going to consider how and to what extent allegations of 
trafficking and abuse should be investigated.  We’ll do so in the context of a 
particular series of cases, in which very, very serious allegations have been 
raised against the secretary-general at the Ministry of Justice in the 
Netherlands, Mr. Joris Demmink.  Mr. Demmink has been accused by a witness – 
that will present today – of sexually abusing and raping the witness when the 
witness was being trafficked in a brothel in Amsterdam at the age of 15.  The 
investigation into these accusations was suddenly and inexplicably halted, and 
law enforcement officials involved were allegedly sworn to secrecy.  Mr. 
Demmink has been accused by two Turkish boys, now adults, of having raped them 
in Turkey between 1994 and the year 2003.  At the time, the boys were 11 and 
14, at least one of them was homeless, and trusted the Turkish police officer 
who brought to Mr. Demmink.  The other was allegedly locked in a hotel room 
with Mr. Demmink, who assaulted him sexually.

The allegations are shocking and horrible.  Mr. Demmink has a right to be 
presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and that is a sacred 
right that I’m sure we all want to protect.  At the same time, the allegations, 
when taken in their full context, are credible and deserve to be properly 
investigated, so that a prosecutor can make a responsible decision whether to 
proceed with a case against Mr. Demmink.  That investigation has never 
happened.  The investigations that have taken place have been a travesty, and 
have done nothing to clear Mr. Demmink’s name; rather, they have raised further 

Yesterday, the Netherlands’ minister of Security and Justice, Mr. Opstelten, 
wrote to the Dutch parliament regarding this case and listing the actions taken 
by the justice department in regards to the allegations against Mr. Demmink.  
The letter states and I quote: “The nature of Mr. Demmink’s job warrants a 
degree of vigilance,” quote, unquote.  I could not agree more.  The fact that 
Mr. Demmink is the secretary-general of the Ministry of Justice, the very 
entity responsible to investigate the charges against him, should mean that the 
investigation into the allegations was one of the most thorough, transparent 
and well-documented investigations ever undertaken by the Netherlands.  Not 
only are those making the allegations literally taking on the Dutch justice 
system, in person –in the person of one of its top officials, but the 
reputation of the Ministry of Justice itself is on the line.

Sadly, the investigation was anything but thorough, transparent or 
well-documented.  The very serious allegations were never given the courtesy of 
a criminal investigation, apparently because Mr. Demmink’s claims and the Dutch 
cannot disprove with their own records that Mr. Demmink was in Turkey in the 
1990s.  Over and over again, the justice minister’s letter to the Dutch 
parliament states that there was no cause to launch a criminal investigation.  
With all due respect to the justice – Dutch justice minister, this is a tacit 
admission that a thorough investigation has never been undertaken.  It makes 
the justice – Dutch justice ministry look a little bit like an ostrich with its 
head in the sand.  The Dutch government freely admits that it never so much as 
interviewed one of the two alleged victims pressing charges, Mustafa (sp) and a 
third victim, who has now come forward, Yacine (sp), who has never been 
interviewed – has also never been interviewed.

Moreover, the Dutch investigation into whether there should be a real criminal 
investigation never interviewed the Turkish policeman, Mehmet Korkmaz, who 
admits that in the 1990s, he abducted boys for Mr. Demmink to sexually assault. 
 Nor did the Dutch investigation speak to the former chief of police of 
Istanbul, Necdet Menzir, who also contradicts Mr. Demmink’s – Mr. Demmink, and 
states that Mr. Demmink was in Turkey in the 1990s, and that his officers were 
assigned to protect him.  Nor did the Dutch investigation into whether there 
should a criminal investigation speak to Huseyin Celebi, the senior Turkish 
intelligence officer who in 2006, wrote a report on Mr. Demmink’s travel to, 
and the various activities in, Turkey, during the 1990s and early 2000s, and 
who also says that Mr. Demmink used aliases to enter and to exit Turkey.

I live a long way and work a long way from the Netherlands, and do not claim 
expertise in the details of the Dutch justice system.  But frankly, from my 
vantage point, I have to ask, how can a preliminary investigation not interview 
the victims or key witnesses and then claim there is nothing to investigate? 
Whether or not Mr. Demmink is guilty of these allegations against him, we 
cannot say.  But I will state my strong belief that the allegations against him 
will not be resolved without an actual and thorough criminal investigation into 
the allegations raised by the victims and supported by the Turkish government 
officials.  The Netherlands owes this to the boys who have been grievously 
harmed by Mr. Demmink.  And the Netherlands owes this to Mr. Demmink himself, 
whose name has been dogged by – by abruptly halted and grossly incomplete 
investigations for over a decade.  Mr. Demmink himself maintains his innocence. 
 If he is innocent, should want this investigation to go forward so he can 
clear his name.  So I appeal to him to state publicly his own request at an 
investigation be conducted. 

I’d like to now introduce our very distinguished witnesses for today’s 
briefing, and then ask them to proceed.  We’ll begin in order with BVW, who is 
a victim of child sex trafficking, child pornography, and pedophiles.  He 
identified Joris Demmink as a man who abused him as a child and was the primary 
witness giving detail of a pedophilia ring in the Rolodex affair.  This was the 
leading investigation into a pedophile network of the highest ranking 
politicians, civil servants, and influential government and business officials 
in the Netherlands, which included Joris Demmink, now the secretary-general of 
the Dutch Ministry of Justice.  His face must remain hidden due to the highly 
provocative and damaging information he is privy to, and regarding the 
significant power brokers in the Netherlands and because of threats.  

We will then hear from Ms. Adele van der Plas, who has spent the last three 
decades as a criminal attorney in the Netherlands.  Prior to that, she taught 
criminal law at the University of Utrecht.  Adele was a member of the 
Supervisory Board of the Bar Association of Amsterdam, and as a – in a pro bono 
capacity, she has worked tirelessly through the years, fighting injustices and 
judicial bias against abuse against the system.  Adele is a tireless advocate 
for children and brings a valuable awareness to sex trafficking in Holland, 
which according to the United Nations, is one of the top 10 destinations for 
human trafficking.

We will then hear from Klaas Langendoen, who is the chief of Criminal 
Intelligence – former chief of the Criminal Intelligence Services for the 
Netherlands.  Today, Klaas is a private practice and – works in private 
practice as an independent investigator.  In his capacity as chief, he served 
as the lead investigator in the IRT mission, where he (combated?) drug 
trafficking and illegal drugs smuggled into the Netherlands.

And then finally, we will hear from Samantha Healy Vardaman, who is the lead on 
policy issues for Shared Hope International, coordinating advocacy efforts to 
further the protection of sex trafficking victims.  And I would note 
parenthetically, with whom this commission, and me personally, with my 
Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Foreign Affairs Committee, which I am also 
a chair, have worked on legislation over the years to ensure that we have the 
tools in the United States, in our laws, to combat this heinous crime of 
trafficking in persons.  So I am very, very grateful for her work and for the 
leadership that she has shown all these years.  

After directing rule of law program in Moldova for three years, in which human 
trafficking issues frequently figured prominently, Samantha joined Shared Hope 
International in July of ’05 to direct the Trafficking Markets Project, 
resulting in a research report and documentary entitled “Demand,” which 
compares sex trafficking markets in four countries:  Jamaica, Japan, the 
Netherlands and the United States.  In 2006, she began directing a three-year 
research project in tenuous locations into the sex trafficking of American and 
lawful permanent residents, minors, in the United States, funded by U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs and the Bureau of Justice 
Assistance.  I would just point out that we, in the United States, take a 
backseat to no one, and while we look at other countries, we look at ourselves. 
 And this year’s TIP report, as in some previous ones, likewise rates the 
United States just as it does other countries against a backdrop of what we 
call minimum standards, first developed in 2000, and then continuously updated 
over the years.  We want all victims protected, whether it be in the United 
States, the Netherlands or anywhere else in the world.

We are joined by Ranking Member (Cohen?), who – sorry to put you right on the 
spot, do you want to go back – for any comments he might have before going to 
our first witness.

 REPRESENTATIVE STEVE COHEN (D-TN):  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I appreciate 
your calling this meeting on this topic, that’s so, so, so important.  

The idea of trafficking of children has been going on for a while, but it’s 
come to the public’s attention most recently in a glaring manner.  I think the 
world is more aware of it than ever, and we need to do all we can in the United 
States and throughout the OSCE and the world, to end it.  The idea of 
somebody’s liberty being taken from them is the most heinous thing that I think 
one can have happen to them.  And for children to be taken from their parents 
and to be used as a commodity is so immoral that the world’s attention should 
and has come upon it.  But the world’s resources should also come upon, and we 
should commit ourselves to doing all we can to rid ourselves of this decay that 
is within our world society.  And I’m appreciative of the chairman for 
scheduling this important hearing, and looking forward to the testimony of the 

Thank you.

REP. SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Cohen.  I’d like to now – Mr. B., if you could 

MR. B.:  Thank you very much.

At the age of 14, I ran away from home due to trauma of my parents divorcing 
and the misery that I had encountered at school and at home.  I took the train 
with the destination Amsterdam, thinking that I would find a job and create a 
life.  Upon arrival at the Central Station, I was approached by a man who 
offered me a place to stay.  The following morning, I awoke without any 
clothes, and they were taking naked photos of me.  I asked him what he was 
going to do with those photos. He said that he would send them to my parents if 
I didn’t want to do what he wanted.  He told me about brothels where young boys 
worked.  I was then brought the same day to a bar; I was introduced to a man 
who had a brothel for young boys.  I was afraid to say no, and I was very young 
and innocent.  The owner of the brothel forced me to work in this boys’ brothel 
where more young minors worked.  They were all underage minors between the age 
of 14 until 18, from various parts of Europe.  All of the clients that came to 
this brothel were pedophiles.  All the boys working, they were given drugs and 
alcohol.  After a while, this was the daily routine of the sex, drugs and 

In addition, we were rented out for escort services to private clients and 
parties.  The same person who ran the brothel – who ran the brothel – also made 
child pornography films.  I performed in three of those movies.  I also knew 
people who made snuff movies.  I was offered vast sums of money to perform – 
yeah.  I was offered vast sums of money to perform in one of these movies, but 
refused, due to fact that at the end of the – of these movies, the actor is 

As escort, I worked for the same brothel owner and worked out of a bar called 
the Festival Bar, where I met Professor van Roon.  Professor van Roon was the 
man who introduced me to Joris Demmink.  We were sitting at a table and he said 
that I needed to go outside to meet Joris Demmink in his car.  Joris wanted to 
have anal sex with me, and I refused.  I did have oral sex with him.  The 
second time that we met, he wanted me to go with him to him home in Den Haag, 
Riouwstraat 13.  I didn’t want to go with him, as we were forbidden to leave 
the city of Amsterdam by our pimp. 

In 1998, there was a large investigation into a pedophile network in Amsterdam 
and Den Haag.  I was approached by several police investigation units to help 
with the investigation.  I became the key witness of the investigation.  I was 
offered police protection.  During that time, I told of my entire period in 
Amsterdam in the child pornography and the child sex business.  

This investigation was called the Rolodex investigation, and Professor van Roon 
was a key suspect in this investigation.  He had a rolodex, a kind of a card 
file, of various high-ranking Dutch officials who were his clients and friends. 
 I accompanied Professor van Roon on trips to Poland, but I don’t know what he 
was doing there.  Perhaps he was looking for boys for his clients.  He was a 
broker in children for pedophiles in his network.

After my – after my period in Amsterdam, I lived in various places in the 
Netherlands.  I also lived in Den Haag where an attempt to kill me was made.  I 
was shot at three times.  After that, I lived underground and tried to hide, as 
the Rolodex investigation was killed and never pursued.  In addition, I was 
asked to cooperate in a Dutch TV news show, investigating Demmink and 
high-ranking pedophiles.  That show was never aired.

Throughout my time in the child sex industry and after, I have been abused, 
rejected, raped, shot at, lied, and treated as dirt.  My life has been ruined.  
I have to undergo long-term psychological treatment, including very strong 
anti-depression medication.  My relation with my own two children and wife has 
suffered intensely.

I would like to ask the following: help bring Demmink to justice and his entire 
network of influential pedophiles.  Those who abused me and many others like 
myself should be brought to court and punished if found guilty.  Bring back the 
rule of law in the Netherlands; please help protect my identity, because I 
still fear for my life.  I know too much about who are the pedophiles.  Thank 
you for your time.

REP. SMITH:  MR. B, thank you so very much for your extraordinary courage to 
come here today in the pain and agony which I can see on your face and hear in 
your voice.  I can’t say enough how we wish you well and your calls, my hope, 
will not go unheeded.  And we will do everything we can as a commission, 
because if we do nothing else as a commission, it’s all about protecting the 
victims, and so, again, I want to thank you for your extraordinary courage for 
being here this afternoon.

MR. B:  Thank you.

REP. SMITH:  I’d like to now ask Ms. Van der Plas if you would proceed.

ADELE VAN DER PLAS:  (Off mic.)  You hear me now?  Better? Yes?  A little 
closer, OK?

REP. SMITH:  Yes.  Thank you.

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  Thank you.  First of all, I want to thank your commission 
for invitation to inform you about four child abuse cases we are working on for 
so many years already.  I myself represent two Turkish witnesses who raped – 
who were raped and sexually abused when they were 11 and 14 years old.  The 
perpetrator was, according to my sources, a high-ranking Dutch government 
official nowadays, Secretary General of the Ministry of Security and Justice in 
the Netherlands, Mr. Joris Demmink.  I also represent B, who is present today, 
and already was giving a testimony to you.  B was a victim of the same Dutch 
high-ranking official, Mr. Demmink, at a time that he, as a young boy of 14 
years old, was forced to work in a brothel.  I was informed about crimes 
committed by Mr. Demmink in Turkey by official Turkish sources.  They informed 
me that Mr. Demmink, in ’95, was caught in the act of sex with minors in Turkey 
while attending a party in Bodrum.

At this party, minors were abused – sexually abused, and one of the boys tried 
to escape and created a great deal of emotion (sic) which brought the police.  
Mr. Demmink was then arrested, according to my sources, and subsequently 
released, after which his criminal file was used in – to blackmail the Dutch 
authorities to take action in a case against a Kurdish activist who at that 
time stayed in the Netherlands.  I am also the attorney of this Kurdish 
businessman named Mr. Baybasin.  The two well-documented criminal charges that 
were filed against Mr. Demmink by the two Turkish, Osman and Mustafa, were 
never investigated, according to Dutch criminal investigative procedure.  The 
same goes for the criminal charges filed by my other client, Mr. Baybasin, 
against Mr. Demmink.  The victim who is present today, B, was in ’98 key 
witness in the so-called “Rolodex” investigation, but neither his statement 
ever led to an investigation.  Never led to an investigation or prosecution or 
conviction of the real perpetrators, the high-ranking customers, the Dutch 
super elite of the numerous minor brothels in our capital, Amsterdam, at the 

The question arises, Mr. Chairman: what is going on in the Netherlands?  In 
your 2012 report on human trafficking, you recognized the Netherlands as a Tie 
r1 status country in full compliance with the minimum standards to combat 
trafficking in persons, and my experience in the four cases I represent is 
completely different.  High-ranking government officials and politicians in the 
Netherlands seem to form a privileged elite who are above the law when they 
sexually abuse minors and will never be arrested, tried, or convicted.  In 
2000, the Guardian, 12 years ago, described in a very well-informed article, 
the Netherlands and especially Amsterdam as a paradise for pedophiles, where 
the police seemed to be powerless to act, and we now understand why.  In ’98 in 
Amsterdam police investigation, B spoke about it, called “Rolodex Affair,” was 
conducted into a pedophile network of influential Dutch customers of boys’ 

The investigation targeted high-ranking Dutch officials and politicians 
suspected of abusing young buys in Amsterdam brothels.  As a victim, B was one 
– what he said – of the key witnesses in that investigation.  One of the 
suspects in that investigation was Mr. Demmink, but according to leading 
investigators who told me that – leading investigators in this case, according 
to them, as soon as Demmink became a person of interest in this matter, the 
investigation was shut down.  Information about intended actions by the 
investigating police was leaked.  A policeman who worked on this investigation 
said that he arrived at the location and the middleman of this network, 
Professor Varon (ph), was waiting for the police team, and not surprisingly, 
all video evidence was missing and all telephone communication between the 
suspects – which was recorded before – suddenly stopped.  Law enforcement 
officials on the case were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements and were 
sworn to secrecy regarding all information pertaining to the involvement of 
Demmink and other high-ranking officials in this shocking behavior.  

Our present State Secretary of Justice, Fred Teeven, directly under the 
minister of justice, was one of the leading prosecutors in this Rolodex 
investigation.  In 2007, he expressed his frustration about the blocking of the 
investigation in a closed court hearing under oath.  He then told the court 
that this investigation indeed targeted high-ranking representatives of the 
Dutch government – among them, prosecutors – who were sexually abusing minors.  
He also stated, under oath to the court, that this investigation never has led 
to prosecution of these suspects because of certain counter actions.  2007, he 
stated that under oath, and when a Dutch publication in the Gay Krant accused 
Mr. Demmink in 2003 of being involved in the abuse of minor boys in a park in 
the south of Netherlands, the newspaper – the Gay Krant for (homophile ?) 
people – the newspaper was forced to withdraw its accusations under threat of 
bankruptcy by Demmink’s lawyer.

The editor of the Gay Krant, Hen Krol, at the moment parliament member in the 
Netherlands, was told by Demmink in a private meeting directly after – directly 
after that he, Demmink, indeed has had sex with young boys without asking their 
age.  But Demmink let Krol know during that same meeting, remember well, Mr. 
Krol, that we are the ones who make the laws in this country.  

In 2008 and 2010, I filed three well-documented criminal charges against Mr. 
Demmink on behalf of my Turkish clients, Osman and Mustafa, for rape and sexual 
abuse of minors under the age of 16.  The criminal charges filed by Mustafa 
against Demmink were never really investigated.  The Dutch authorities 
dismissed the allegations after demanding that Mustafa first had to travel to 
the Netherlands to officially answer their questions.  But meanwhile, the boy 
was heavily threatened and abused in Turkey.  His tongue was cut with a razor 
blade – you have to shut your mouth – in an effort to (squelch ?) his 
complaints.  The boy was approached by the then high-ranking police chief, Emin 
Arslan in Turkey, who offered him a good life in case he withdrew his charges 
against Demmink.  If not, the boy’s life would be destroyed, so they told him.  
The boy was frightened to death, but never withdrew his charges against 
Demmink.  He had his experience in Turkey where you don’t have any right in 
front of such high-ranking officials, and as a result of what happened to 
Mustafa, I asked the Dutch prosecutor to arrange official security for Mustafa 
during his stay in the Netherlands to give his statement.  I also asked the 
Dutch prosecutor to allow his lawyer to be present during the police interview, 
and these requests were consequently refused despite the terrifying experiences 
Mustafa went through.

Mustafa did not travel to Holland to answer questions about his accusations 
against Demmink, as a result of this, but he offered again and again to answer 
all questions the Dutch police and prosecutors still might have in Turkey in an 
official inquiry hearing.  But such an inquiry has never occurred.

The second Turkish boy, Osman, traveled to the Netherlands, where he was – also 
a client of mine – where he was  interrogated by Dutch investigators in 
February 2011.  However, a thorough criminal investigation was never initiated 
in this case either.  Five witnesses – and Mr. Chairman (present ?) spoke about 
it already – with direct knowledge about this crime were waiting in Turkey to 
be interviewed by Dutch prosecutors, but they were ignored until now.  The 
Turkish policeman Mehmet Korkmaz, who was Demmink's security officer during the 
secretary-general's visits to Turkey and who has since admitted kidnapping 
minor boys for Demmink to abuse, offered – he offered to be heard by Dutch 
police in Turkey, despite risk of his personal safety.  No one from the 
Netherlands ever contacted him.  His testimony can be seen on the video on our 
website and I thought will be presented here too for some fragments out of it.  

And the same goes for the former chief of the Istanbul police, Necdet Menzir.  
He also was willing to testify about Demmink's visits to Turkey in the ‘90s and 
the fact that his police officers were ordered to protect Demmink.  No one ever 
contacted him, either.  Subsequently also the offer of a third Turkish boy, 
Yacine, who said to have been sexually abused by Demmink in this Bodrum event 
in ’95, also he was ignored by the Dutch authorities.

Despite this overwhelming amount of available primary witnesses, the criminal 
charges filed by Osman and Mustafa never led to an official criminal 
investigation as defined in the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure.  The 
prosecutors persisted that there was not enough ground to call Mr. Demmink a 
suspect and to start an official criminal investigation against him.  Only a 
so-called exploratory investigation was conducted, and that’s not even existing 
 in Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure.  And without an official criminal 
investigation based on the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure, the "hands of the 
prosecutors were completely tied", according to their own words to Mr. 
Langendoen and me in a meeting.  

Without an official suspect and an official criminal investigation, the 
prosecutors lacked the authority to travel to Turkey to interrogate the 
available witnesses and to properly investigate the data of Demmink's official 
and non-official trips in the ‘90s.  And in the Netherlands, where it only 
takes an anonymous tip to initiate not only a criminal investigation, but also 
police actions such as arrest and house search, the reaction of the prosecutor 
011 this matter can be called quite absurd.

Instead of performing its own research, the prosecutor's office has simply 
taken for granted Demmink's alibi that he never visited Turkey since ‘87.  A 
Dutch research journalist, however, who asked the Ministry of Security and 
Justice to be provided with all the travel dates of their high-ranking 
officials in the ‘90s, him was told that all travel documentation older than 
five years was destroyed.  That was in February 2012.  That’s why the final 
conclusion of the prosecutor in Osman's case in February 2012 was that it could 
not be confirmed that Demmink traveled to Turkey in the ‘90s.  That’s why they 
refused further investigation.

Moreover, Turkish authorities have leaked documents proving that, 
notwithstanding his denials, Joris Demmink did indeed enter Turkey in the ‘90s. 
 At the time, Mr. Demmink was director-general of international affairs of the 
Dutch Ministry of Justice.  And as a member of the European Union K4 committee, 
he was especially responsible for the Kurdish-Turkish conflict.  Even without 
the Turkish documents we received, it’s inconceivable for the Dutch to claim 
that a high-ranking European official with duties specially focused on Turkey's 
conflict with the Kurds would not have visited Turkey during the ‘90s.  That 
would be equivalent to an American ambassador of Turkey based in Washington who 
never visited Turkey.  Besides that, it’s a fact that the Dutch authorities who 
received copy of the Turkish list of travel dates of Mr. Demmink never did any 
effort to check the status of this document in Turkey itself or to entry dates 
it mentions.

The travel dates of Joris Demmink are stored in the computers of the 
intelligence agencies in Turkey.  Several sources confirmed that they have seen 
this information available, to me.  The latest information confirming Demmink's 
travel dates, we received from the Turkish prosecution office in Diyarbakir, in 
Kurdish region.  This office has started now an investigation against Demmink 
and two of his Turkish allies in corruption and child abuse, the former 
minister of interior, Mehmet Agar, and the former police and intelligence 
chief, Emin Arslan, who was the one threatening Mustafa after he filed his 
first criminal charge.  One of the first results of the recent Turkish criminal 
investigation is that Demmink used three different aliases to enter Turkey at 
the time.
The validity of Demmink's travel dates to Turkey are also confirmed by sources 
including the EK report of the senior Turkish intelligence official Huseyin 
Celebi.  I gave your commission this report.  
Celebi introduces himself in his letter of February 2010 as the Turkish 
intelligence official who wrote the EK report in 2006 to inform the highest 
military, political and juridical level officials in Turkey.  In this – in his 
report, he was the first to reveal what Demmink did, travel to Turkey during 
the mid-1990s, and how these criminal acts were used to blackmail the 
Netherlands in order to force the prosecution and conviction of the Kurdish 
activist Baybasin for non-existent crimes, with the help of falsified telephone 
In his EK report, Celebi wrote, literally:  Demmink also participated in 
similar pedophile parties – pedophile parties in Turkey.  Because a gun went 
off during a party in Bodrum in ‘95, the police arrived.  Joris Demmink, who 
was especially occupied with the case against Baybasin in the Netherlands, 
visited Turkey, he says, as a tourist in ‘95 and for an international meeting 
in Antalya in June ’96.  And besides that, he writes literally, he entered and 
left Turkey in the years ’97 ’98, ’99, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and in most of 
the cases he wiped his tracks. This information is collected by official and 
special Intelligence Services, Celebi writes.  It’s also known, he says, that 
he entered Turkey under different names.
The Dutch Prosecution Office, Mr. Chairman, never investigated the sources of 
the EK report either. This is surprising because the information of the EK 
report is confirmed in an old document of the Ministry of Justice in the 
Netherlands itself, in which is said that – and it was in document of ’97 – in 
that document is said that the Baybasin case is used as leverage in order to 
get something done from the Turkish authorities in another case.  It’s very 
clear.  And it said that the responsible official in this case was Joris 
Demmink, ’97.  
The first reaction of the Public Prosecutor on the EK report was, towards me, 
that in his view – and I’ve everything recorded on correspondence – his first 
reaction was that in his view, Huseyin Celebi, the intelligence officer, was a 
non-existent person.  Huseyin Celebi then wrote his letter of February 2010, 
together with a photo of him in the company of a high-ranking Turkish 
politician of the ruling Turkish AK Party, to the Dutch authorities offering 
them – Celebi –  to answer their questions regarding his report and 
accusations.  Also this offer was subsequently ignored by the Public 
Prosecution Office. 
All these facts lead to only one conclusion.  The criminal charges filed by the 
two Turkish boys Mustafa and Osman against Demmink were never investigated.  
The travel movements of Demmink in the ’90s were never examined.  None of the 
witnesses presented in Turkey were heard.  During the orienting investigation 
Demmink simply maintained his position as highest-ranking official of the 
Ministry of Security and Justice in the Netherlands.  And on the base of this 
non¬existent criminal investigation, the Turkish criminal charges against 
Demmink were dismissed by the Dutch prosecutor.  It seems to be a complete 
repetition of what happened in the Rolodex investigation in ’98.

At the moment I’m preparing an appeal against the decision of the Dutch 
National Prosecution Office not to prosecute Demmink for the crimes committed 
in Turkey and the Netherlands against my clients Mustafa, Osman and Baybasin.  
I’m still waiting for a promised copy of the official file of the Turkish 
prosecutor who collected the entry dates of Demmink from the different 
authorities in Turkey in the ’90s in the nineties and the aliases he used when 
he entered Turkey, Demmink.  But according to my Turkish sources, there is 
considerable pressure exerted on the Turks by the Dutch not to reveal the truth.

One important issue to keep in mind is that the media have not been very 
supporting in informing the Dutch public about this horrific, horrific story.  
Most of the large mainstream media have not written anything for several years 
about Demmink.  This weekend probably a large national newspaper is finally 
going to publish new material about Demmink and others victims.  The power 
elite in the government, we are told, have – has muzzled the leading editors 
not to write about this story.

I am born and educated in the Netherlands.  I’m proud of the values of 
democracy and rule of law that govern in our society.  I’m here because some of 
our leading officials seem to have hijacked our system, abusing all their 
official power to cover up their ugly behavior towards young people and others. 
 And that’s terrifying.  Nobody should be above the law when he sexually abuses 
minors or abuses his official government position to cover this up.  We only 
search for justice, that people come in court.  And we ask your commission help 
and advice to reach this.

In conclusion, I would like to ask you for two things:  The State Department 
should remove the Tier 1 status from the Netherlands, as they don't deserve it 
as long as this goes on.  And secondly, the Helsinki Commission of the U.S. 
State Department should put maximum pressure to have the official dates 
released which prove that Demmink was in Turkey in the ’90s as well as other 
convincing evidence in the hands of the Turkish authorities; I know they have 
like a video made of them in raping one of the Turkish boys and used as 
blackmail towards the Netherlands.

Thank you for attention.

REP. SMITH:  Thank you very much, Ms. van der Plas, for your very extensive 

I’d like to now introduce our third very distinguished witness, the former head 
of the Dutch Department of Criminal Intelligence, who specialized in, as he 
points out in his statement, in major cases concerning organized crime.  Mr. 

KLAAS LANGENDOEN:  Mr. Chairman, members of Congress, congressional staff 
members, I want to thank you for your kind investigation (sic) to be here today 
to explain my findings in a very delicate matter.

Approximately nine years ago I was approached by the law firm Bakker Schut & 
van der Plas, who asked me to carry out an independent, objective investigation 
in the case of their client Mr. Huseyin Baybasin.  The investigation had to 
examine alleged manipulation of wiretaps by the Dutch government, which in the 
– which in the Turkish case against Baybasin were used, as well as possible 
blackmail by the Turkish government of members of the Dutch justice department 
in the Netherlands.

At the start of my independent objective research, I wondered whether the 
theory of the law firm was not a nonsense fairy tale story.  I mused that this –

Yes, yes.

I mused that this level of corruption could never occur in my country, where 
I've worked so hard for fighting against organized crime.

I set up my research based upon the premise that the theory of the law firm was 
false.  I have tried to prove this.  This method is called the reversed burden 
of proof.  If there is no proof for the falsity of the theory, then the theory 
is correct.  The research that I did in the Netherlands proved me that it was 
possible to manipulate wiretaps and also allowing innocent people to be found 
guilty.  I completed my research in the Netherlands with the result that a 
number of scientific experts were studying the results produced.

Eventually the Dutch justice department hired an expert who was not qualified 
to carry out the research and came with his own conclusion.  The result – the 
results was that this expert gave a wrong assessment upon which Baybasin was 
sentenced for life in prison.

After the sentencing, I continued my research, at the request of the law firm 
Bakker Schut & van der Plas.  I don’t – I did not limit my research to the 
Netherlands, but I did extensive research in Turkey.  I’ve spoken with almost 
all the witness in this case, both individuals and various government 
officials.  I documented my – thoroughly by both video and audio tape testimony 
so that they could be used as evident later.

The result – the result of my research was shocking for – were shocking for me. 
 By speaking with many witness, a conspiracy became clear against Baybasin, the 
victim. There was a set-up or cover-up between Turkish and the Dutch government 
officials at the absolute highest levels.  The witnesses confirmed what the law 
firm kept telling me.

The picture was – what I got was the following:  A high-level Dutch justice 
official, during visits to Turkey, requested that young boys be brought to him 
to order to have sex with them.  This was verified and recorded by the secret 
intelligence service of Turkey.  A high-ranking intelligence service officer 
gave me a copy of a Turkish report that explained the story of the Dutch 
justice official who had minors brought to his hotel room for sex and the 
blackmail that was carried out against him and the Netherlands by the Turkish 

I finished my report with the purpose of giving this to the Dutch government so 
it could be used to carry out a criminal investigation.  We sought to have an 
independent commission created to study this case and bring out all the facts.  
That committee was provided with all the available information.  The commission 
also tried to reach the manipulated wiretaps and investigating them.  The 
result was that the wiretaps were found – were found to be more than likely 

However, the research was provided – that was provided was rejected as it was 
found not scientific or convincing.  This research was never carrying – was 
never carried out, and thus the true was never revealed – sorry.  At the moment 
that I – a decision was make – made by the commission to travel to Turkey to 
interview the witnesses again, the justice department intervened again and 
blocked this from happening.  This research was therefore never taken place and 
the truth never revealed.

Mrs. van der Plas filed a police report on behalf of the Turkish victims with 
the aim that a criminal investigation will be started into the conduct of the 
high Dutch justice official, Mr. Joris Demmink.  These type – these type of 
investigation in the Netherlands are carried out by the National Investigation 
Unit.  The National Investigation Union (sic) falls directly under the College 
of Prosecutors, who meet regularly with Mr. Demmink, as he is the 
secretary-general of the justice department.

All available information were made available by Mrs. van der Plas and myself 
at the National Investigation Unit.  We even have one of the Turkish victims 
travel to the Netherlands to make a statement.  In addition, we also had an 
important witness come from Turkey to the Netherlands to speak with the 
National Investigation Union (sic).

The result was, as the leader of this National Investigation Unit told us, that 
there will be no criminal investigation.  The National Investigation Union 
(sic) had confined itself to a so-called a “fact collection” and has had no 
authority to do a proper investigation.  Again, a missed opportunity to fully 
investigation the allegations in Turkey and take testimony from the important 
witnesses did not happen.

In the – in the past years I have done extensive research regarding more 
possible child abuse victims in high police and justice officials in the 
Netherlands.  From this research it is being crystal clear to me that there is 
and has been abuse of minors by high police justice officials and that all – 
that all efforts to criminal investigations and prosecute these cases have been 
blocked and covered up.  During my investigation, I came in contact with one of 
the victims, who is here today and has told his story.  After serious 
reflections, I have come to the conclusion that the Dutch government does not 
want to and will not investigate this very sensitive issue of manipulating 
wiretaps under which someone is wrongfully serving a life sentence and about 
the young boys and the one of the highest officials justice (department ?).

It’s also my conclusion that, after many, many years of research by myself, the 
theory of the law firm Bakker Schut van der Plas is correct.  Their client, Mr. 
Huseyin Baybasin, was framed, and several of Mrs. van der Plas’ other client 
were abused by justice department secretary general, Joris Demmink, when they 
were a minor.  My confidence that the Dutch government will ever carry out a 
fair, independent investigation in these two issues is completely gone.

1 hope that you can – or the United States can help us in resolving this matter 
through diplomatic or severe methods in this very sensitive issue  What I – 
what I would like to ask the commission is threefold.  First, pressure the 
Turkish authorities to release all the information about the blackmailing.  
Second, pressure the Turkish authorities to release the travel dates of Demmink 
during the ’90s.  This will resolve the matter once and for all.  And third, 
pressure the Turkish authorities to release the video made of Demmink raping 
one of the Turkish boys.  Thank you for your attention.

REP. SMITH:  Thank you very much for that, again, very extensive, and – you set 
out disprove and came to an opposite conclusion.  That’s quite remarkable.

I’d like to now show a very brief video, and then we’ll go our fourth and final 
witness.  And that is a video of Police Officer Korkmaz who allegedly offered 
Demmink security in Turkey and kidnapped boys for him for abuse, and also 
Mustafa, who’s identifying Demmink, and we’ll now watch that video. 

(Video plays.)

REP. SMITH:  OK, we’ll now go to our fourth very distinguished witness, Miss 

SAMANTHA VARDAMAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Cohen, and to the 
Helsinki Commission and the Victim’s Rights Caucus for keeping the spotlight on 
this critical issue of child sex trafficking.

The victimization endured by this man as a child is heartbreaking.  Shared Hope 
International has been working to develop responses to child sex trafficking, 
restore victims and prevent victimization for 14 years.  In 2006 to 2007, under 
a grant from the U.S. Department of State Office to Monitor and Combat 
Trafficking in Persons, Shared Hope researched sex trafficking markets in four 
countries.  The Netherlands was one of those countries.  The goal of that 
research was to identify commonalities that could refocus our efforts to fight 
trafficking on an issue basis, as opposed to a regional basis.  Well, the 
finding was the commonality is, and was, and continues to be demand.  The 
second commonality is that exploitation of children through sex trafficking is 
occurring around the world, and the Netherlands was no exception.  The 
exploitation includes giving anything of value in exchange for pornography, 
sexual performance or prostitution.  All three occur in nearly every country 
around the globe.  Child sex trafficking and child sex tourism are happening in 
all parts of our world, and the reason is that demand exists for commercial 
sexual exploitation of children.  

Focusing on the findings in the Netherlands illustrates the scope of the 
problem.  Legalized prostitution led to increased demand, and consequently, a 
need for more supply.  But there are a limited number of adults willing to 
enter the prostitution, quote, “profession,” and the deficiency is filled with 
trafficking victims.  The ban on brothels was lifted in 2000 in the 
Netherlands, and just a few years later, the Amsterdam City Council recognized 
the dangers of trafficking, deciding to close 100 of the 350 prostitution 
windows in the Red Light District. Amsterdam’s mayor stated, almost five years 
after the lifting of the brothel ban, we have to acknowledge that the aims of 
that law have not been reached.  Lately, we’ve received more and more signals 
that abuse still continues.  The police admit we are in the midst of modern 

In 2003 in the Netherlands, there were 257 registered victims of human 
trafficking.  A 2004 media piece reported that the Amsterdam city council was 
going to close the street prostitution zones. It also reported a public opinion 
poll taken on the issue of the resignation of one of the council members 
because he had been found to have purchased prostitution in that same street 
zone.  Seventy three percent of the citizens believe that public officials 
should not be stigmatized for buying prostitution, and 63 percent believe the 
council member’s actions were a private matter, and certainly not the grounds 
for resignation.  This is what we call a culture of tolerance, and we find that 
where it exists, it makes the job of fighting trafficking that much harder. 

In 2004, about 8,000 prostitutes worked in Amsterdam alone, and some two-thirds 
of those were of foreign origin.  In 2005, Dutch police received more than 600 
reports of women who may have been forced into prostitution, and 400 women 
contacted anti-trafficking organizations for assistance.  In 2007, there were 
343 registered victims of sex trafficking, 25 percent of those were under 18 
years old.  At the time of our research in 2006 and 2007, there was reportedly 
no police presence between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. in the official Red Light 
District in Amsterdam, a time which one trafficking victim who suffered her 
experiences there called, quote, “a black market of prostitution, when children 
became readily available.”  Only five to six police officers worked in the 
entire Red Light District at that time.  There was no capacity for 
investigating the illegal trafficking occurring.  This was an iceberg with 
legal prostitution at the top masking the vast illegal activity beneath.  

The Dutch criminal code in 2005 extended jurisdiction to reach citizens 
committing child sex tourism – that is, sexual exploitation of a child outside 
the Netherlands.  But in the Netherlands, there continued to be increasing 
amount of pimping, organized crime and exploitation of children.  In a 2005 
news report, a former Vice officer in the Red Light District reported that the 
two primary groups of pimps working in that Red Light District were called, 
quote, “Loverboys,” and, quote: “the Turks.”  He reported that law enforcement 
officers had three months to complete investigations, a wholly insufficient 
amount of time for these complicated crimes.  Shared Hope’s partner Scarlet 
Cord worked in the Red Light District in Amsterdam doing outreach and services 
to trafficking victims.  They identified the Loverboy problem early on, and 
began to put programs into schools to educate and to prevent the recruitment of 
these mostly teenage victims. The Loverboy pimping method is very similar to 
modern trafficking in the U.S., relying on emotional bondage rather than 
physical force to maintain control over their young victims.  In our research 
in the Netherlands, victims reported also that, quote, “magic” was used to 
entice them.  But this is not limited to the Netherlands, and it’s certainly 
not limited to any one country.  A weak link in the global dragnet and safety 
net will prevent us from protecting the victims of child sex trafficking.  

As Congressman Smith noted at the start of this briefing, traffickers rely on 
the ability to frighten children, and keep them quiet, and it’s imperative that 
the justice system be ready now to listen to allegations and to thoroughly 
investigate them.  Shared Hope has highlighted some promising practices through 
our research here in the United States in the last five years, promising 
practices to develop proper responses to child sex trafficking.  Some of these 
are happening in other countries already, and all of them are transferrable to 
any country to take them on.  First, the presence of school resource officers 
within schools to help build trust between law enforcement and children 
undermines the traffickers’ ability to scare their victims by – into 
distrusting law enforcement.  

Education at all levels of the justice system, from investigation to trial, 
will lead to more identifications of child sex trafficking victimization and 
better responses.  Above all, victim- centered approaches to interviewing and 
investigation are critical to a child’s confidence to disclose their 
victimization.  A few examples exist that were – are worthy of highlighting:  
The Dallas police department has a High Risk Victim’s Unit, in which the 
process is to flag a file of a child who is a repeat runaway, and direct that 
file straight to this High Risk Victim’s Unit where there are child forensic 
interviewers ready to investigate with proper child approaches. 

Gang units, like the Fairfax County gang unit in Northern Virginia, are being 
trained in sex trafficking identification and victim interviewing that can 
separate the victim from the influence and gag control of the gang.  Human 
trafficking task forces across the U.S. and in other countries bring together 
service providers and law enforcement to ensure victims are supported and 
encouraged to seek justice.  And lastly, victim witness coordinators and the 
majority of federal law enforcement offices across the country ensure the 
victim is supported through the investigation and trial process. 

Shared Hope International has developed the Protected Innocence Challenge, 
which, though domestic, has relevance for the world.  It includes a framework 
of laws for effective responses to child sex trafficking.  The framework 
credits those states that have laws in place providing for victim protections 
and support through the investigation and trial process.  Currently, 34 states 
in the United States currently have some protection, and all are being 
encouraged to enact more laws, which will ensure that more victims are heard.

And finally, as I stated several times throughout, attacking demand:  Demand is 
the root of the problem, and we’ve heard about the exploitation today of 
children firsthand from the people representing them.  And if we could focus 
some of that effort on demand, maybe this wouldn’t have occurred in the first 
place.  Resources and prioritization of fighting demand are critical and lead 
to corroboration of a victim’s complaint, less reliance on victim testimony and 
hopefully, and ultimately, a reduction in the number of children exploited. 

Child sex trafficking is a threat to our society’s health, undoubtedly.  And 
it’s truly a national and international security threat as well.  It allows 
organized crime to prey on the most vulnerable.  Until we all, as a global 
community and individually within our nations, our state, our cities, get 
serious about stopping demand, this fight has no end.

Thank you for continuing to keep this issue at the forefront.

REP. SMITH:  Thank you very much, and thank you for the outstanding work that 
Shared Hope International has done and continues to do.

You know, I noted in reading your – Mr. Cohen, do you have any questions?  
Thank you so much.  I noted in your report, you point out that the women in 
this area, talking about one of the Red Light Districts, are mostly Latin and 
South American, from Colombia, Cuba, Brazil and Venezuela.  I was on – in 
Brasilia on a trip years ago to talk about an effort to get the Brazilians to 
pass a comprehensive strategy on combating sex trafficking, to protect their 
own children, because child sex tourism is so huge there.  I met with 
parliamentarians in Brasilia for several days, but we made a one day trip to 
Rio de Janeiro, went to a shelter.  And while I was at the shelter, there was a 
woman from Brazil who had just been rescued with tears pouring from her eyes – 
rescued a couple of days earlier – but as she told her story, she was en route 
to Amsterdam.  

And I have raised this issue myself with the Dutch as head of delegation for 
the United States Parliamentary Assembly, as chairman of this Commission, that 
– and as you point out in your report, when you get two-thirds or more, some 
put it as high 80 percent or higher, of the women being foreign – even the 
indigenous Dutch women, it is highly suspect as to at what level of coercion 
have they been brought there – but when so many people from other countries are 
present, it begs the question about the – and there have been the rapporteur’s 
report in previous years that strongly suggest that there are levels, and I 
would suggest high degrees of levels of forced fraud and coercion involved.  
And I saw it myself with the one rescued woman who was in a shelter in Rio de 
Janeiro who was saved from that nightmare of being sent as a slave to Amsterdam.

I would to ask – and if you could, Ms. Vartaman –  you know, Ms. Van de Plas in 
her statement, in one of her two, asks was that Holland be removed from Tier 1 
– your thoughts on that?

MS. VARTAMAN:  Still on?  I think that the assessment of Tier placement is a 
complicated one.  And I would defer – (chuckles) – I would defer.  What I would 
say though, is that it is clear that efforts are in place in the Netherlands, 
and in the United States and in other Tier 1 countries that do reflect an 
intention to address trafficking.  Whether those efforts are reaching their 
goal, I think, is a different question.  

REP. SMITH:  Let me ask Mr. B., if he could – you mentioned that you were not 
allowed to leave Amsterdam by your pimp.  What would have happened had you left 
Amsterdam?  Do you know of anybody who escaped, and what happened to them?

MR. B.:  Can you do the – say again?

REP. SMITH:  Yes.  What would have – what would have happened had you been able 
to leave Amsterdam after your exploitation?  Do you know of any others who did?

MR. B.:  I would have been punished.  

REP. SMITH:  How?  Beatings?

MR. B.:  Sorry?

REP. SMITH:  You would have been beaten, or –

MR. B.:  Yeah.  Beaten or worse.

REP. SMITH:  Do you know who was maltreated?  Who tried to escape?

MR. B.:  No, I can only speak for my own. 

REP. SMITH:  In your presentation, you stated that various high-ranking Dutch 
officials were part of a pedophile ring contained in Professor van Roon’s 
rolodex.  Now you made extensive reports to the police during the 
investigation.  Were there any law enforcement officials suspected in the 
investigation or others officials that might have been in place to stop that 

MR. B.:  Yes.

REP. SMITH:  Was your pimp or anyone else ever charged as part of that 

MR. B.:  I don’t know.

REP. SMITH:  You don’t know, OK.  Your presentation indicates that you were 
prostituted at the Festival Bar in Amsterdam, along with other boys.  Can you 
tell us what has happened to the Festival Bar after your police report?  Was it 
shut down?  And were the boys rescued?

MR. B.:  The Festival Bar has changed the name, and there are still boys 

REP. SMITH:  Notwithstanding your complaint.

MS.:  (Off-mic.) What’s the name now?

REP. SMITH:  Yeah, could you tell us what the name of it is now?  Do you know?

MR. B.:  No, I don’t know the name, sorry.

REP. SMITH:  You know, you are obviously being, you know, we are seeking to 
hide your identity to the greatest extent possible.  Are you fearful of any 
retaliation because you have presented testimony here before the Helsinki 

MR. B.:  I don’t know what happen with me if I go back to the Netherlands, if I 
arrive at the airport.  I talked about it with my attorney.

REP. SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. B.  Ms. van der Plas, if I could ask you, in your 
presentation, you mentioned a previous case, of course, the Rolodex case, that 
you believe shows a pattern of investigations being shut down by Mr. Demmink.  
You mentioned that, quote, “According to the leading investigators in the case, 
as soon as Demmink became a person of interest in this matter, the 
investigation was shut down and that the sting operation to catch the man who 
identified it – Mr. B. – was compromised.”  This information came from leading 
investigators in the case, did it?  And how many investigators on the case were 
willing to speak with you about this?

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  One investigator visited my office, and told me his whole 
story.  And he told me this:  He was in the preliminary investigation and he 
knew very well that this Mr. Demmink was one of the suspects.  And he said, we 
had some unofficial wiretapping, and we heard all the people speaking, but at 
the moment we started the official investigation, it was – all the 
communication was closed down.  So it couldn’t be different than there was a 
leak.  And also he said, when we went to this middle man, this Mr. van Roon, he 
was waiting for us.  He was waiting for us, and his whole house was clean.  So 
it was very clear, he told us, oh, there you are.  We are waiting you.  And he 
also told me that the victim who is now testifying to you gave him very 
reliable information at the time that he found back when he did his searches.

And in question you asked the victim, I can tell you that in that case, one 
pimp was convicted, not very large sentence.  One of it was conditional.  And 
the condition was for a part of the prison sentence he could work in a kind of 
farm where children came.  

So the policeman who told me that was still so angry.  The policemen who worked 
on that case are really frustrated.  And I also heard – but that was through a 
middleman, a journalist, who told me that the chief of the investigation team, 
a man who really believed in God and in good life, he told the journalist, I 
can’t speak.  I go every Sunday to the church to sing it away from me.  That’s 
what the policeman say.  And I know that Mr. Langendoen next to me spoke even 
to other investigators who – of that team at that time who confirmed exact that 
information.  Isn’t it?

MR. LANGENDOEN:  (Correct ?).


REP. SMITH:  You mentioned that the current state secretary of justice, Fred 
Teevi (sp) – is that how you – 

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  Teeven.  

REP. SMITH:  – Teeven stated under oath in 2007 that high-ranking Dutch 
officials in the Rolodex case were never prosecuted because the investigation 
was blocked.  Was there an investigation as to Mr. Teeven’s allegation that the 
investigation was blocked, and if so, what was the outcome?

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  Tell me – 

REP. SMITH:  Did any – did anybody look into why it was blocked?

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  No.  Nobody ever looked in.  It’s also this case was kept 
silenced, and it was very special that our state secretary of justice, Mr. 
Teeven, brought that under oath in an – in a complete different case.  He said 
this was what happened.

And what’s also interesting – that in 1999 Mr. Teeven, when he was still 
intelligence prosecutor, he was prosecuting that case, he gave an interview to 
a magazine for lawyers and he said there, it’s my knowledge, as prosecutor of 
intelligence cases, that it’s known to me that information I gathered that 
criminal organizations in the Netherlands have influence on politicians and 
even on judges.  

So when you hear that, it’s terrifying.  He then was still prosecutor.

But the problem is, since Mr. Teeven is secretary of state, we don’t hear him 
anymore.  So what happened, I asked then, because this is what he said, and 
that’s published.  I – we even can show you, if you would like – he said that 
then, that he has information, because when you see – when this happened in 
Turkey, that foreign intelligence agencies have influence, can blackmail our 
government and our – that’s terrifying.  

But not only them; when criminal organizations deliver kids to those people – 
to people in – so high-ranking inside a government, a prosecution office and 
justice system, then those criminal organizations also have a – mean to 
blackmail those people.  And that’s going on for a long time when this already 
happened in the ’90s.

And even our state secretary told that to a judge, told that in public, and 
nothing happened.

REP. SMITH:  The situation with Mr. Baybasin – and maybe, Klaas, you might want 
to speak to this as well – all of us are well aware of the intensity of the 
feelings of Turks for Kurds and vice versa.  


REP. SMITH:  I’ll never forget, after the first Persian Gulf War, when Kurds 
had made their way to the border.  I went over there while it was still a very 
volatile situation and saw as these poor people were on the border, being held 
by our special forces and others, to simply survive.


REP. SMITH:  There were – the Turks barely allowed them to be across the border.

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  That was the – 

REP. SMITH:  And so my point is, you know, the backdrop of that issue and, you 
know, the quid pro quo, perhaps, allegation, that that led to the blackmailing 
and the – and the situation – 

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  That’s very clear, because Mr. –

REP. SMITH:  Please, if you could just elaborate on – 

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  – Mr. Demmink was member of this EU KFOR (sp) committee – 

REP. SMITH:  Right.

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  – and he was specially responsible for the Kurdish-Turkish 
conflict.  So he had this direct connection with the Turks.  

And this Mr. Baybasin, this Turkish activist, was busy to let their – the Kurds 
have a better life and some of them who couldn’t have that to run away from 
there.  So in that way, they were kind of – (inaudible).  And that’s why the 
Turkish government at the time said, we see this Baybasin as a real main 
object.  We want to silence him.  And you have to help us because we caught you 
with those kids.  And that’s also what Mr. Langendoen heard in Turkey.

But this whole political thing behind it is very clear, and then it’s so 
strange that Mr. Demmink said, I didn’t visit Turkey since ’87.  He was the 
main person in the Netherlands with this – who was dealing with this 
Kurdish-Turkish conflict and had the contacts with Turks.

REP. SMITH:  Well, I think your point that an ambassador to another country 
would hardly stay in Washington – they would be traveling in – back and forth – 
would be staying there of course but in this case, when that’s your duties, it 
would – it would be a dereliction of those duties not to be traveling to 
Turkey.  I think that was a very –


REP. SMITH:  – very important internal strength to your argument.


REP. SMITH:  Do you – can you give any indication as to why the current Turkish 
leadership, when these Turkish boys were so allegedly abused and exploited and 
raped, wouldn’t find it in their own interest to protect, you know, a Turkish 
citizen, not want to say, whatever happened before, so be it, but you know – 
not so be it; whatever happened before, you know, wherever that goes, you know, 
we want to protect our own children and now young adults?

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  Yes, you could say so, but at that moment the Turkish 
government that was not the (now – this ?) government –

REP. SMITH:  Right.

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  – but was focusing on this Baybasin.  They wanted to –

REP. SMITH:  Oh, sure, that government.  But this government, it seems to me –

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  Yes.  This – this – 

REP. SMITH:  – and you know, the Turkish government now –


REP. SMITH:  – more and more has spoken out against – combating human 
trafficking, and this is a case of their kids.

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  And that’s why they gave Mr. Landendoen so much information. 
 So we – all our sources are from Turkey, official sources, other sources.  
Isn’t it, Mr. –

MR. LANGENDOEN:  (Off mic.)

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  That’s why they want to help us, but they – in the same time 
they are forced by diplomatic pressure not to give everything, just to give 
pieces.  That’s why we are hanging in between for so many years already.  Yeah.

REP. SMITH:  Now the major daily that may very shortly – if you wanted to speak 
to that, Klaas – 



MR. LANGENDOEN:  (Off mic.)

REP. SMITH:  The major daily or the major newspaper – would this be a 
breakthrough in terms of finally bringing some light and scrutiny to the issue?

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  Telegraaf.  This – that will come, yes, because that’s going 
to speak about, by the way, all the investigations Mr. Langendoen did, and 
there are new Dutch victims who spoke about what happened to them.  

MR.     :  It’s coming.

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  And that’s coming very soon.

MR.     :  (Off mic.)

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  Isn’t it?

MR.     : Yes, very soon.


REP. SMITH:  Could I just ask you, if I could, Ms. van der Plas – you talked 
about Mustafa.  You mentioned that – because I have met with the ambassador of 
the Netherlands to the United States.  I do believe in hearing from all sides 
and doing my due diligence – matter of fact, he did mention in his letter the 
Tier 1 status as if that somehow exonerated a country and that would apply to 
any country.  You know, that may show a good trend, but if there are individual 
cases that need to be looked into, they need to be.  But that said, you know, 
that says nothing about this case.  But you know, he – you talked about 
Mustafa.  He did not feel safe in traveling to the Netherlands.  You mentioned 
contra-actions, I think, was the phrase you used.

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  Contra-actions was the Rolodex case.

REP. SMITH:  OK.  OK.  It was the Rolodex –

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  We had the contra-actions in the – 

REP. SMITH:  OK.  With Mustafa, it was with safety – he was – he wanted a 
guarantee of safety and he also wanted a lawyer present.  

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  Yes.  That’s what I wrote to the prosecutor.  And then the – 

REP. SMITH:  Why wouldn’t the lawyer be allowed to be present with someone who 
wants to come forward like that?  That’s baffling.

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  Yes, the – when I asked the prosecutor – and I have it all 
in correspondence available – I said because of the threats the boy had, he – I 
would like to be present, or his Turkish lawyer, and we want security and – 
because he is giving a statement against the highest man at the Ministry of 
Justice.  And for this kid, as a Turkish citizen, he knows they – those people 
have power.  

And then he wrote back, Mrs. van der Plas, this is – “Det ist Nedeland” (sp).  
That means, “This is the Netherlands.”  

So no, and I couldn’t guarantee my client full safety when he came.  So the kid 
was terrified, really scared to death, yeah.

REP. SMITH:  With regards to the Turkish prosecution office in Diyarbakir, you 
said they had now of – an active investigation against Mr. Demmink and two of 
the individuals worked with Turkey.  Could you elaborate a little bit more on 
that?  How long has that been going and –

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  This is very recently –

REP. SMITH:  Recent.

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  – started, somewhere this spring, because the Turkish 
authorities want something and then all the time delay, and that’s why I’m 
waiting now with this appeal that I got the information from them.  But I know 
that exactly last week they made some movement and they going to listen to some 
witnesses.  So there is now some progress in it.  And I think, when from United 
States side there is support for what they going to do in this respect, that 
would help them really.

REP. SMITH:  Let me ask you, have you been threatened?

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  Have – 

REP. SMITH:  Have you been – personally been threatened yourself at all?

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  No.  No.  

REP. SMITH:  That’s –

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  But I don’t even see it.  When – I’m not – how do you call 
it?  Available for that or open for that?  (Chuckles.)  Yeah.  (Laughter.)  

REP. SMITH:  Let me ask you one final question.  You mentioned that a current 
member of the Turkish state security council, Mr. Salibi (sp) –


REP. SMITH:  – of the military wing of the Turkish intelligence service, sent 
to the Netherlands a list of the many visits he believed Mr. Demmink made to 
Turkey between ’95 and ’03.  However, the Netherlands has dismissed the report, 
never contacted the author, who remains a special security adviser for, among 
other things, the Turkish minister of the interior.  

Could you speak for other on that?  Why would such information be shelved or 
refused to be acted upon?  Or is it being acted upon in any way?  And did this 
Mr. Salibi (sp) run a risk in providing that information himself?

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  Mr. Salibi (sp) made his report –

REP. SMITH:  Because, again, in my conversations with the Dutch, they say that 
he just wasn’t there.  (Chuckles.)  And that, you know, exonerates him and as 
you have pointed out others have pointed out, he came under aliases, he came 
other ways.  

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  I made some attachments for your commission.

REP. SMITH:  (Inaudible.)

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  His (act ?) report is in there, and Page 23 gives the dates 
that according – he was the first one to reveal the dates that Demmink entered 
Turkey in the ’90s and how everything happened.  But I also attached his letter 
to the Dutch authorities, this independent commission Mr. Langendoen spoke 
about, and he offered in that – he said who he was, and he offered to give all 
the information.  But nobody ever asked him to do so and to give it.  So what 
we gave – it was ignored.  It was ignored.  And we gave that to you, so what he 
said.  And I was visiting Mr. Salibi (sp) even with Mr. Langendoen, and we 
discussed his report.  We have photos of that.  Yeah.  And we have also, if – 
he gave us also a photo showing – look, I write this letter that I was the 
special adviser of the minister of interior in Turkey at that time, but here – 
look, me, on the airport with this actually second person in the AK Party.  So 
this is really someone not to ignore, but the Dutch just didn’t even think 
about it.

When I would have been Ministry of Justice in the Netherlands – (chuckles) – I 
am not – I should have said, OK, I – the first thing I do is transparently, 
openly ask the Turkish government, what is about this report?  They never did, 
just ignored.

REP. SMITH:  Is it a cover-up?  Is it a cover-up?

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  What’s a cover-up?  You mean that they don’t do anything?  

REP. SMITH:  Right.

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  What we – what we see all the time in this case – whatever 
we bring in, in fact, silence is after that.  We are ignored.  

REP. SMITH:  Mr. Langendoen, let me ask you a question.  You indicate that 
after years in the criminal justice system in the Netherlands, you were very 
surprised by the facts presented to you by Ms. van der Plas and her legal unit 
regarding the conviction of Baybasin and its relationship to the allegations 
against a high-ranking justice official.  You said, and I quote, at the start 
of your “independent research,” you “wondered if the theory of the law firm was 
not a ‘nonsense’ fairy tale story” and you “assumed that this level of 
corruption could never occur” in your country, where you had “worked so hard” 
against organized crime, close quote.  

Is your assessment – is it your assessment that this case is an aberration from 
what is normal in the Netherlands, or is the sign of a systemic problem with 
organized crime?

MR. LANGENDOEN:  Yeah, I was shocked –

REP. SMITH:  Put on your – I’m sorry.

MR. LANGENDOEN:  I was shocked by what I heard from the – those two lawyers.  
When they asked me to some investigation about it, I said, it’s a fairy tale.  
I know Holland very well, about organized crime, all those kind of things, but 
those things doesn’t happen in Holland.  That was my opinion at that moment.

But they asked me, Klaas, please do the investigation.  We believe in – we 
believe in the story.  And after that, I must say, I think that it’s true.

REP. SMITH:  You were –

MR. LANGENDOEN:  That the Dutch government are blackmailed in the story of the 
– of the – of the highest-ranking man of justice.  

REP. SMITH:  You mentioned that the national investigations unit did only a 
facts collection investigation but had no authority to do a proper 
investigation.  What additional options and powers would have been open to an 
investigator if they had been empowered to open an official investigation, just 
so we understand the differences?  Which witnesses did they not interview as a 
result of the limited investigation?  

MR. LANGENDOEN:  I asked the head of the – of that investigation – I gave him 
all the information.  I said, I can give you the people who must do this 
investigation.  I traveled then to Turkey.  I was – very good contacts during 
these days in contact – intelligence service, police, everything.  I can 
introduce them.  You can do a very good investigation.  He said, no, no, we do 
REP. SMITH:  And why do you think that’s the case?
MR. LANGENDOEN:  He said – he said, we don’t see anything for – no facts for a 
criminal investigation; no, we don’t do any criminal investigation.  And when 
there is not a criminal investigation, I can’t do anything.
REP. SMITH:  But given your extraordinary credibility and the fact that you are 
a man who has made a difference in meting out justice in Holland, didn’t that 
add to, you know, the imperative that they do something?  I mean, you were 
presenting something – I mean, you set out to disprove – you didn’t think it 
was real.  Then you came to – it seems to me that that’s –
MR. LANGENDOEN:  I pressed him.  I said, I’ve got all the information for you; 
I can travel with you to Turkey; we can speak to the victims, to the – to the 
police officer, intelligence officers.  And he said, no, I’m not allowed to do 
REP. SMITH:  Not allowed.
MR. LANGENDOEN:  Not allowed.
REP. SMITH:  Under pain of being fired or reprimanded in some way, do you 
think?  Or –
MR. LANGENDOEN:  I don’t know.’
REP. SMITH:  You don’t know.  OK.
I’d like to yield to – without objection, to our – one of our counsels on the 
Helsinki Commission, Allison Hollabaugh.
ALLISON HOLLABAUGH:  Thank you all for being here today.
Mr. Langendoen, what is the current status of the Baybasin case?  Your – you 
did extensive research into evidence tampering with the wiretaps.  Has there 
been any movement in the Dutch government on looking into this case any further 
to see if there was any miscarriage of justice?
MS. VAN DER PLAAS:  Maybe I will – because there happened something in that 
case now.  Till now they refused completely to do anything.  We asked again and 
again for investigating the – because the man was convicted on only telephone 
tapes.  And Mr. Langendoen even interviewed, in Turkey, all the policemen who 
said, I was helping the Dutch to manipulate those telephone tapes at the time.  
But they refused till now to do an investigation.
But we made a revision request to the Supreme Court of the conviction of Mr. 
Baybasin.  And that revision request was done April 2011.  And only recently – 
and we brought in all the evidence we have, and we have a lot.  And recently, 
in August 2011, the attorney general of the Supreme Court said, I require to 
the Supreme Court that I can do a new investigation into this case because 
there is so much material, but we want to verify that material.  And just 
recently, the day we left for Washington – that was Monday or – no, Tuesday I 
got information from the Supreme Court that they made a quick decision.  It was 
planned on 30 of October, but they made it last Tuesday, and they said the 
prosecutor, by new attorney general of the Supreme Court, by the new law, can 
do this investigation itself.
So I think now that the attorney general, different than the prosecution 
office, sees the value of what we have already, and he is now starting an 
investigation.  And we just can hope that this will be a real investigation.  
He wrote in his conclusion very precisely that he wants to involve the defense 
very much into this investigation because also he believes in rule of law.  But 
he said, I almost can’t believe that this happened in my country, but let’s go 
and investigate it.  So this is a new development, but very recent, actually 
last week before we left.
MS. HOLLABAUGH:  Now, will this be a full investigation or a fact-finding 
investigation or a completely different type because it’s in court?
MS. VAN DER PLAAS:  It is a very special investigation in our criminal law.  It 
is – and it is just by new law, 1st of October, made possible.  And it is a 
fact-finding investigation by the highest attorney general of the – of the 
Supreme Court into the facts we brought, the new facts for the revision.  So 
that will be the telephone tapes, but that will also be the interrogation of a 
translator who knew everything and who said that this Baybasin was a purpose of 
the Turkish government.  So he’s going to interview witnesses, and he wants to 
make a new investigation on the telephone tapes and all the irregularities, 
which you can hear already, but then to investigate it really.  So it can take 
some time, but it will be very interesting.  And of course, then you can’t walk 
along Mr. Demmink’s role anymore either.
MS. HOLLABAUGH:  Ms. Vardaman, you mention in your statement that legalized 
prostitution led to increased demand and thus a need for greater supply in 
relation to the Netherlands’ legalization of prostitution in the year 2000.  
You also did a study of several other countries at the same time on your – of 
your 2007 study.  Did you also see a similar pattern there, if any of them 
similarly legalized?  Or do you have any other examples of legalization leading 
to greater demand?
MS. VARDAMAN:  The other three countries, Japan, Jamaica and the United States, 
do not have legalized prostitution and did not at that time, except for the 
rare situation in the state of Nevada, where several counties still have 
brothels, legal brothels.  And that was really the only thing we could compare 
to in that research.  However, it did play out similarly in our research in 
Nevada.  Las Vegas was one of the cities we focused on.  And that definitely 
was a line of questioning that we had when we went into Las Vegas, and the 
similar feeling and evidence came out that there was an increase in demand for 
commercial sexual activity in those places where it is legal.  And that 
included those counties in Nevada, where they saw, actually, people leaving the 
city of Las Vegas to travel out to the nearest county that does have legalized 
prostitution for that purpose.
REP. SMITH:  Before we conclude – and I would ask if there’s anything else you 
would like to share with us – I do want to mention that we did invite 
Ambassador-at-Large for Human Trafficking Luis CdeBaca to be here today.  I 
have called over to the office, as has the staff several times specifically on 
this case, and have not heard back from them, which is disappointing because I 
wrote the law that created that position, both the office and the 
ambassador-at-large, and no call back.  And you know, again, whether a country 
be a great friend of the United States or something less than that, friends 
don’t let friends commit human rights abuses, and if they’re – if this is an 
aberration or if this is a pattern, there are real victims, including the very 
courageous Mr. B, who’s right over here, who have suffered and carry those 
scars, and we need to speak truth to power, wherever it is, including our own 
country here in the United States.  So I note that with disappointment, that 
they’re not here to be at this table to speak to this very important issue.  
But we will stay at that.
We do – since this is a briefing and not a formal hearing, we do entertain 
questions.  So if there is anyone who would like to raise a question with our 
very distinguished witnesses or me, please proceed.
Q:  (Off mic.)
REP. SMITH:  Would you take a –
MR.:  Do you want to take the microphone at the end of the dais there?
Q:  Hello.  Hi.  My name is Kwame Fosu, and I’m the policy director for the 
Rebecca Project for Human Rights.  And thank you for holding this very 
important hearing.  We are very grateful.  And thank you for coming, Adele, 
Klaas and B.
What is the process?  We know that the Netherlands has been cited by the United 
Nations as one of the top 10 tourist sex destinations –
MS.:  (Off mic.)
Q:  Oh, sorry – one of the top 10 destinations for sex tourism.  What is the 
process of changing their rating from a Tier 1 country to a Tier 2 or Tier 3?  
What is the actual process?  How do we do this?  Because it’s very important to 
the Rebecca Project that people like Joris Demmink, who actually are in charge 
of prosecuting human trafficking, do come to justice.  And we want to make sure 
that advocates in the United States are aware of this and know how we can – we 
can take steps to change their rating.  And so we want to know what’s the –
REP. SMITH:  Great question.  First of all, as I think many of you know, we 
established what we called minimum standards in the 2000 act.  We built on 
those in the ’03, the ’05 and then the more recent act, adding to information 
as to what the backdrop is that we use in our data calls to our embassies in 
finding out whether or not there are prosecutions, complicity by government 
officials, how well or poorly the military is doing, are they complicit in 
trafficking.  And it’s a very comprehensive look.  And matter of fact, in 2000 
we were focusing on arrests, but we didn’t get to the conviction part.  And 
some countries actually gamed the system and did arrests, but they weren’t 
doing anything about jail time.  So we changed that in subsequent laws.
The process, very simply, after that backdrop, looking at the facts, then 
applying what’s happening on the ground with those standards, the minimum 
standards, as we call them – and they are minimum; they’re not maximum; they’re 
minimum, but they’re very important – is for the Department of State to make a 
call, based on that information, as to whether or not they are Tier 1, Tier 2, 
watch list or egregious violators, which would be Tier 3.  The process today – 
the designation of any country can be changed on any day if the data warrants 
it.  It is customarily done after the TIP report is released.  There’s a 
section that has all countries ranked, including the United States.  But 
frankly, if information comes forward suggesting that there is reason for a 
demotion or a change, you know, an improvement, a tier ranking can be changed 
on any day of the week of any month of the year.  So Holland could be changed, 
if the Department of State and the TIP office so desired it, today or tomorrow 
or any other day.
But we did – by design, as Congress, did not make tier callings.  We felt that 
it would be best done by each of our embassies, feeding into the TIP office 
itself.  And as we all know, there is a political struggle within the 
Department of State.  There are many ambassadors who don’t want their country 
being designated Tier 3.  There’s a great deal of push-back.  I think that’s 
unfortunate.  It ought to be all about the Mr. Bs and the victims, because 
there is a two-part strategy there:  first the designation, and then what do 
you do with it.  There are a number of actions that can be taken in terms of 
penalties.  And hopefully, the penalties will be commensurate with the tier 
But if a country does start to make some real progress – and we’ve had a number 
of countries that have done that.  Great allies like Israel and South Korea 
were Tier 3 countries.  And Israel moved heaven and earth to close brothels and 
to make sure that women, especially in Tel Aviv, were not being exploited.  And 
in like manner, South Korea passed a number of important laws and policies to 
mitigate trafficking, particularly sex trafficking, in that country.  So, you 
know, it’s all about making the call based on the facts.
I have argued for a long time that Holland does not deserve to be on Tier 1 
because of the enormously large number of women and boys and young people who 
are exploited in the 13, as Ms. Vardaman told us, red-light districts in that 
country.  And you know, the line of demarcation between a trafficking victim 
and a woman who purports to be there on her own volition is very threadbare 
indeed.  There are levels of (forced ?) fraud and coercion that could be easily 
missed by someone who is inclined to think it’s all OK, and added to that, 
anyone who has not attained the age of 18.  So all of these young boys that are 
being exploited, and young girls, in Amsterdam, in the facility that is still 
or the brothel that still has people in it with a different name, is a 
trafficking crime because, you know, one commercial sex act, our definition in 
the law, and anyone who has not attained the age of 18 is, by definition, a sex 
trafficking victim.  So I would encourage, even admonish the administration to 
rethink its Tier 1 designation.
But I’ve done that before and have gotten nowhere.  Thank you for the question.
Q:  I have a question.
Q:  Dr. Cassie Bavin (ph), used to work on this committee, and for you, Mr. 
Chairman.  I would like to know, given the fact that we don’t really have 
jurisdiction over Holland and there is no real nexus to be able to make much 
change in another country, how do we enforce – I mean, one, how do we – how 
would we keep the secretary-general or anyone else who’s an offender out of the 
United States?  And you know, what kind of resolution, what kind of enforcement 
could we in the United States have as a Congress to be able to keep someone out?
And the other is to how can we get Holland and other countries that have – that 
have voluntarily entered into agreements such as the Palermo Protocols, why is 
not – you know, how do you get countries to follow their own agreements that 
they agreed to enforce in their own countries?  I mean, everybody is saying, 
you know, your threes – your three Ps, you’ll protect, prevent and prosecute.  
But, you know, we’re not seeing it.  And I think it’s outrageous that the TIP 
Office doesn’t respond to the chairman of a committee like this and the author 
of the bill, who is much esteemed by everyone in this room and in every place.  
So that’s outrageous.

REP. SMITH:  Thank you, Cassie (sp).  Is that for me or the others or for all 
of us?  Well, I’ll just take a couple –

Q:  (Off mic.)

REP. SMITH:  OK.  Yeah, please.  Ms. van der Plas?

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  To understand well, you see, you can have nice regulations, 
but when something is behind it, like hidden, that even policemen are forced to 
silent down.  That’s the point.  I think it’s very important that the facts we 
bring now are included in the conversations, in the estimations.  And that’s 
the only thing to do, because you can make rules, but – that’s what I say.  I’m 
educated in a country where I – yeah, rule of law and so on, but when you see 
then the reality and the practice, that can really frustrate.

And it’s very important, like you – as the chairman’s already said, we have to 
listen to the victims.  But it’s also very important in a country like the 
Netherlands, that – and that’s what I saw those last years very clearly, that 
people working as policemen, really honest policemen, even honest prosecutors, 
I have them seen in my office sometimes with tears in their eyes that they 
could not go on.  They were scared they lose – some lost their jobs because 
they didn’t want to go on.

It’s very important that we find a way to support the good people in those 
systems who want to do something and that – and when policemen are forced to 
shut – to close their mouths, that we find a way to support them, to help them. 
 And that’s a very difficult thing because what you see is that people shut 
their mouths and say, OK, Mrs. van der Plas, I know much more, but I’m not 
going to tell you till I’m retired because I’m still scared for my profession, 
for my little house.  I have children.  This is at the moment a mentality in 
the Netherlands.  And that was shocking me.  And I think people have to come 
out, and the people who come has to be supported.  We have to say, OK, when you 
deny it, give – hear are facts.  And what are your facts?

So that’s why we come here, because there was a bit discrepancy between – that 
she says, yes, but the Netherlands are doing a lot of effort in new laws and 
things like that.  I don’t deny that; I just see what’s happening behind the 
screens that makes – it’s like you paint your ceiling white, but the roof is – 
still has holes, and water pours in.  That’s the whole problem.  And how do we 
find a solution for that?

REP. SMITH:  I would add there is no statute of limitations on rape and 
exploitation of young children.  As I said in my opening, I can’t think of a 
more egregious crime against a human being than rape and than rape of a child.  
And we know with the victims that the scars are lifelong, can perhaps never be 
mitigated, but they – we need to stand with them, that there is justice for 
those who commit these crimes.

The importance of a hearing like this is to try to bring light and scrutiny, to 
try to persuade the Dutch government, who is a close ally of the United States, 
that this is an embarrassment.  And if we’re wrong, if this information is not 
correct, if this is some grand conspiracy, the purpose of which I can’t even 
begin to think why, I mean, before we decided to do this, we did our due 
diligence on our side.  And that doesn’t mean we have absolutely everything.  
But that’s why we have asked for an investigation that will go – that will go 
on beyond the (cursory ?).  And to have a man of Klaas’ stratus – status, I 
should say, a man who, you know, who made it his business to put criminals away 
for life, you know, that have committed terrible crimes, brings an enormous 
amount of credibility, as do you all.  And to hear from the victims themselves 
is numbing.

In terms of what we should do, our own TIP Office needs – should be here.  It’s 
not.  I will ask again that they engage on this.  Maybe they have, and I’d love 
to see the information.  I wanted it before we actually had this briefing.  Our 
appeal is to the government, and I hope that they will respond and they will 
indicate if the attorney general takes this up, that – you know, for their own 
reasons, because they care about justice.  You care about – Holland is a 
rule-of-law country.

And again, with regards to tiers, as I said before, we did not mince – 
designated our best friends in the world who are at risk:  South Korea, with 
the threat in the north; Israel, who is a – our greatest ally in the Middle 
East, close – the only democracy in the Middle East was on Tier 3 during the 
Bush administration.  And I always applauded that courage to do that.

And I would note, parenthetically, that this bill – and Cassie (sp) remembers 
this because she worked with us to help get it enacted in the first place – was 
vigorously opposed by the Clinton administration on the record.  Harold Koh sat 
where you sat – who’s now counsel at State – they did not want to have the 
naming of names because it is embarrassing; it complicates all the niceties of 
statecraft.  And they did not want sanctions.  My argument is, everyone will 
agree, if it’s all done in the abstract, to combating trafficking; not so when 
you really do the data calls, you do the hard work and say there are people – 
victims like – you know, like Mr. B, who – that’s why we do this law, period.  
And so naming is important.  And I hope the TIP Office takes a good look at 
this and reviews this.

Finally, I am the special representative for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.  
I do think it is my job in that capacity to raise these issues in the hope that 
very well-meaning and – people committed to the rule of law, which we know the 
Dutch government has, as you pointed out, Ms. van der Plas, there are these 
great policemen who are frustrated – just do it right – you know, and we’re 
trying to form some support for that.

Anybody else?  Yes.

Q:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I’m HP Schreinemachers.  I’m counselor for 
justice and home affairs at the Netherlands Embassy.

Just for the record, I wanted to make one comment, please, if you allow me.  
And that is that contrary to the impression that the panel might have given 
you, the Netherlands takes the fight against child sex trafficking very 
seriously.  And we could have commented if we would have been invited to this 
panel.  But it wasn’t until we protested not being included on this one-sided 
panel that you came back last Monday offering us the opportunity to ask the 
first question and send in a written statement.  Well, since just asking a 
question or giving a short remark like this one doesn’t compensate for the 
one-sidedness, we declined to do so.  We did, however, send in the letter – 
(inaudible) – the minister of security and justice has sent to the Dutch 
Parliament, and I would refer to them.  Thank you.

REP. SMITH:  Could I ask you, please, if you don’t mind, was there anything you 
heard today that caused you to rethink that perhaps there is a very credible 
story here?

Q:  I think that I’m not on the panel, so that’s not the way to address 
questions to me.  But I – (inaudible) –

REP. SMITH:  No, it’s a give-and-take.  This is not a hearing. And you have the 
floor, and I’m asking you a very serious question.

Q:  And I’m – I was in the process of giving you an answer, but I wanted to 
make that clear first.  And that is that the information that has been given 
today is – has all been available.  And therefore, I think it’s good that Mrs. 
van der Plas indicated that she’s going to take this – what is now amounting to 
a public trial to the court of appeals, and I think that’s where it belongs.  
Thank you.

REP. SMITH:  OK.  Any other questions?

Anything you’d like to say in sum, as we – before we close down?

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  I would like to thank you very much and your commission.  I 
have a copy of what I sent, but – we gave it already but with the attachment.  
So (there’s ?) one copy with this – (inaudible) – report and the letter of Mrs. 
– (off mic) – and thank you so much for what you do in general for the 
anti-human trafficking act of 2001.  I was reading it from Internet.  I could 
follow everything.  It’s very good, tremendous job.  And I even also heard Mr. 
Obama speaking when I was (at ?) the United Nations conference that this is a 
new form of slavery.  And thank you very much for this effort, this emphasize 
you made on this already for so many years, and hearing us here and that we 
could bring here the problem we are fighting for for so many years already.  
Thank you.

REP. SMITH:  Thank you so very much.  And I will say that if the Dutch 
government would like to, we will convene a second hearing and invite you to 
the witness table.  We’ll work out a date, and I look forward to it.  Hearing’s 

MS. VAN DER PLAS:  Would be marvelous, yeah.