US embassy cable - 04THEHAGUE1595

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001595 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PTER, KCRM, NL 
SUBJECT: DUTCH APPEALS COURT ALLOWS USE OF INTEL INFORMATION 
IN TERRORIST CASES 
 
REF: (A) 03 The Hague 3087;  (B) 03 The Hague 1859 
 
1. In December 2002, a Rotterdam court acquitted four men 
who, the Government alleged, were involved in a plot to bomb 
the U.S. Embassy in Paris.  The court refused to allow the 
prosecution to use information supplied by the intelligence 
service, AIVD, as evidence.  On June 21, 2004, The Hague 
Appeals Court reversed the lower court's acquittal of Jerome 
Courtailler and Abdelghani Rabia and sentenced them to six 
and four-year jail terms respectively.  The appeals court 
found the defendants did not plan an attack but convicted 
them for being involved in an international criminal 
organization that was planning an attack.  Courtailler and 
Rabia were also convicted of involvement in another criminal 
organization that, among other activities, engaged in the 
trade of forged passports.  The other two defendants were 
also convicted of the lesser offense of participating in a 
criminal organization trading in forged passports.  They 
were sentenced to 18 and 12-months in jail. 
 
2. At the time of the court's decision, Courtailler and 
Rabia were out of the country - Courtailler allegedly in 
France and Rabia in Algeria.  Arrest warrants were issued 
for both men.  Courtailler turned himself in to Dutch 
authorities June 24 and has begun serving his sentence. 
 
3. The pivotal question before the appeals court concerned 
the validity of using intelligence information by the 
prosecution - both in the investigation and in court as 
evidence.  Since the Rotterdam court's decision in 2002, 
Dutch prosecutors have been reluctant to pursue cases based 
in large part on information coming from AIVD.  In October 
2003, the Government arrested but then quickly released 
another four men suspected of preparing a terrorist attack 
because there was insufficient evidence independent of 
intelligence sources to detain them (Reftel A).  Agreeing 
with the Government's argument, the appeals court held AIVD 
information was "a very good" base for starting a criminal 
investigation or issuing arrest or search warrants.  It also 
allowed the use of "part" of AIVD intelligence as evidence 
under certain circumstances (i.e., the information must be 
able to be verified). 
 
4. According to a Justice Ministry source, Minister Donner 
is pleased with the decision, seeing it as a complement to 
his efforts to improve law enforcement tools to combat 
terrorism.  He plans to continue to press parliament to 
approve pending legislation making membership in a terrorist 
organization and conspiracy to commit a terrorist act 
separate offenses as well as recruitment for the jihad 
punishable under the criminal code (Reftel B). 
 
5. COMMENT: This is the first successful conviction of 
individuals for suspected terrorist activity by prosecutors 
in the Netherlands.  While the defendants can appeal to the 
High Court, the prosecutors are confident this ruling will 
stand.  Prosecutors have indicated to Embassy officials they 
intend to actively utilize the court's ruling to strengthen 
their counterterrorist efforts.  END COMMENT. 
 
SOBEL