Thursday, November 17, 2011

Two forced prostitutes on the Zandpad


Another verdict from the I will offer some translations. The LJN-number is: BQ6884. You can find the document here:

By the way, the pimp was sentenced to 8 years in jail. Here are some translated part:

The court considers it to be lawfully and convincingly proven that the suspect committed various variants of human trafficking regarding [victim 1]. First of all, the court relies on the testimonies of [victim 1]. From these testimonies the following is shown.
[Victim 1] has lived at home until the age of 15. A man came once to ask permission to marry her. This man was [suspect] and he came from Utrecht. [Suspect] came together with his mother to the house of [victim 1] and asked the mother and the uncle of [victim 1] permission to marry her. Within a week [victim 1] was married to [suspect]. She then was 15 years old.
After the marriage [suspect] went back to the Netherlands after a week. [Victim 1] then stayed in Morocco. When he came back after seven or eight months, he said to her that her documents were ready and that she was allowed to accompany him to the Netherlands. [Suspect] told her that she would study and work in the Netherlands.
In the Netherlands, [victim 1] came to live in the house of her mother-in-law, on the [address]. Later on, she went living with [suspect] in Bilthoven. Also after she has lived in Bilthoven, she went back to the house of her mother-in-law. She had the key of the house of her mother-in-law. She has also lived with other family members of [suspect].
During the period that [victim 1] lived with her mother-in-law, her passport was in the possession of [suspect].
[Victim 1] couldn't read or write the Dutch language. She knew nothing about the Netherlands. She wasn't allowed by [suspect] to follow Dutch lessons. She has only been to school for 1 or 2 days.

Since the first day that she lived in the Netherlands, she was beaten by [suspect]. She was beaten with the hand or with shoes. [Suspect] once also shaved her head bare. Then her hair was so short that she couldn't grab it anymore. This was during the wedding of the brother of [suspect], [involved person 6]. She was also raped in her anus.
[Suspect] has threatened her that he would kill her and her mother and sisters. [Victim 1] was obliged by [suspect] to have sex with other men for money. He taught her gestures for giving a blowjob and fucking. [Suspect] also demonstrated it with a banana and a condom. She worked seven days per week, also when she was ill or menstruating. She was obliged to work by [suspect] when she was pregnant, but she was obliged by the police to stop working because of the pregnancy.
During the first months, her room on the Zandpad in Utrecht was arranged by [suspect]. At the moment she knew how to do it herself, she arranged it herself from then on.
On March 6, 2009, when she worked on the Zandpad, [victim 1] declared to the police that [suspect] acted as her chauffeur every now and then.
The money that she earned she had to give to [suspect]. If she didn't give money to him, then he would kill her. The more money that she earned, the better it was. She earned at least between 500 and 700 guilders per day and at most between 2000 and 3000 guilders per day. She never earned less than €500 per day (comment by Donkey: yes, they are mixing up the currencies). When [suspect] was in jail, she had to send the money to the prison and pay rent to a Czech man for a restaurant.

[Suspect] gave her drugs. Since the age of 17 she started to use drugs. She couldn't work without the drugs and the drugs took her shame away, it made her less shy. She never obtained the drugs herself, [suspect] did that.

Despite the fact that the file contains indications that [victim 1] was in the Netherlands also before July 1, 1999 and set to work in prostitution by [suspect], there is insufficient lawful evidence for this, so that the suspect will be acquitted of the fact that he is accused of under 1.


Supporting evidence of the testimony of [victim 1] is found by the court in - among other things - the testimony of the suspect during the session of the court of March, 7:
I married [victim 1] in Morocco when she was 16 years old, with the permission of her parents. In the documents of the file is exactly indicated when we married. I divorced in 2006. The divorce was declared in the beginning of 2006. The relationship did last longer.
I have arranged the trip of [victim 1] to the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, we lived on the address [address] in Bilthoven. She has also lived with my family. She has lived almost with my whole family. Before my detention we also lived at my mother's place, because my mother is disabled.
Concerning the Zandpad: I did know it and I did agree with it. In the beginning I did have problems with it. Later I had less problems with it.
[Victim 1] didn't speak Dutch in the beginning. She also couldn't read or write in Arabic. She was able to speak the Arabic language however.
I did bring and/or pick her up sometimes to/from Amsterdam and Utrecht. In Utrecht I brought and picked her up less often.
[Victim 1] worked with variation, 5 days at most. She worked a various number of hours per day. Sometimes she began during the morning and worked until 16.00 or 17.00 hours. [Victim 1] worked when she was menstruating.
She used coke and xtc pills. She also drank alcohol.
[Victim 1] does know people, people from work among other things, [name], [name], [name], [name]. I did come on the Zandpad, because I dropped her off there.
It is correct that I did have some contact with [victim 1] after the divorce. That has been until approximately 3 weeks before I went with [victim 2] to the police office.

Residence permits
On May 18, 1998, [suspect] made a request at the IND (immigration and naturalisation service) for an authorisation for a temporary residence for his wife [victim 1]. In a letter from the IND of June 29, 1999 it is stated that the authorisation for a temporary residence has been granted. A visa has been issued to [victim 1] that is valid since August 26, 1999. From the stamp on her passport it emerges that she arrived in Belgium on August 30, 1999.

Living addresses
Since September 3, 1999, [victim 1] was registered on the address [address] in Bilthoven. Since December 6, 2005 until June 20, 2006, [victim 1] was registered on the address [address] in Utrecht. The address [address] in Utrecht is the address of the mother of [suspect].

[Involved person 1], the mother of [suspect], testified to the examining judge that [victim 1], after she had arrived in the Netherlands, went to live in a house in Bilthoven. [Victim 1] once lived temporarily in her home, in the period that [victim 1] and [suspect] were already divorced. [Victim 1] has also lived temporarily with [involved person 3], with [involved person 4] and with [involved person 5].

[Involved person 2] has testified to the examining judge that [victim 1] often resided in the house of the mother of [suspect], and she was quite one of the family there. [Victim 1] also lived with [involved person 3], with [involved person 4] and with [involved person 6].

[Involved person 7] has testified to the examining judge that [victim 1] has lived with him and his wife in 2006-2007, in the period that [suspect] was imprisoned.

Violence and threats
[Involved person 8] has testified to the examining judge that [victim 1] was maltreated by her husband and he saw that she always had a bruise somewhere.

[Involved person 9] has testified to the examining judge that he saw wounds near the eye of [victim 1], a cut near her nose and he has seen that her nose was crooked.

During a conversation on September 17, 2009, in the presence of the police, [victim 1] shouted in the direction of [suspect] "you are a cancer pimp, you beat me to play whore".

[Involved person 10] (work name [involved person 10]) has testified to the police that she got to know [victim 1] (work name [name]) when they both worked on the Zandpad and that she knew that the husband of [victim 1] was her pimp. When [victim 1] stayed with her in Amsterdam [victim 1] told her that she was beaten by her husband when she didn't work enough hours, says [involved person 10]. [Victim 1] also told her that she was anally raped by her husband.

In December 1996 (comment by Donkey: don't they mean 2006?) [victim 1] sought contact with the police and she told that [suspect] threatened her with death via telephone. She tells that she is scared to death.

[Victim 1] has testified that her work name on the Zandpad was [name].
Formulieren Overdracht Zandpad (= transfer forms Zandpad) are used by relief workers of the Huiskamer Aanloopproject Prostituees (HAP = living room of visitors project for prostitutes) to report details of prostitutes on the Zandpad in Utrecht, who visited the office of the HAP. The mentioned forms include the following among other things:
-Friday, November 26, 200(4) (remark by the court: year not very well readable, but by paying attention to the combination of date/day of the week, it should be 2004):
[name] (a Moroccan female) had stitches above her right eye and the eye had been thick and blue, had a conflict with her husband, is married to him for seven years.
-June 17, 2005: [name] has broken her right leg. She was asked if her husband had anything to do with it. No, this time it wasn't.
-March 3, 2006: [name] (a Moroccan female) was back... She is divorced from her husband, he maltreated her. We did see M with eyes that had been beaten black, and we have seen stitches.

On November 20, 2004 patient [victim 1] came to the Diakonessenhuis with a wound on her forehead which continued until her right eyebrow. The wound has been stitched.

Bare head
[Victim 1] has testified that the suspect shaved her head bare with a knife. This should have been in the period around the marriage of [involved person 6] and [involved person 11]. [Involved person 11] has testified to the examining judge that on October 23, 2003 she married with [involved person 6] and that she knew [victim 1] a couple of days then. On her wedding [victim 1] had short hair, a little bit like a boyish haircut. She could just put her hair behind her ears. She could remember that [victim 1] had long hair before that.

Hot spoons
The suspect will be acquitted of the segment of the accusation of fact 4, that is about the pushing/bringing of hot spoons under the feet/sole, because the supporting evidence is lacking in the file and the own testimony of [victim 1] about this is inconsistent.

Balcony/open window
The suspect will be acquitted of the segment of the accusation of fact 4, that is about the pushing off the balcony and/or through an open window, because the testimony of [victim 1] is not unambiguous regarding this point and there is insufficient evidence of this part in the file.

[Involved person 10] (work name [involved person 10]) has testified to the police that [victim 1] has told her that she was raped by her husband in her anus.
[Victim 2] has testified to the examining judge that she was also raped by the suspect.

Officer [officer 1] has testified to the examining judge that he has seen once or twice that [suspect] dropped off [victim 1] on the parking lot opposite the Zandpad.

The number of working hours
[Involved person 7] has testified to the examining judge that [victim 1] worked starting from around 9 o'clock until 16.00 hours or 17.00 hours.

Income that was handed over
[Involved person 8] has testified to the examining judge that [victim 1] must have earned money like gold with her work, because she was occupied often. She didn't have money, not even for a pack of cigarettes. She lived at the expenses of family and friends. He himself paid her €100 on average and he has calculated that she must have gathered at least 2 million.

The landlord [involved person 12] of the building [address] in Utrecht, where the suspect wanted to establish an eating-house/catering firm named [name], has testified that [suspect] paid the rent in the beginning and that after this, a girlfriend of his, who said she was his wife, paid the rent.

[Victim 2] has testified the following: One day he said he had a Moroccan woman in his service in Utrecht. She worked at the little boats. He told that the work yielded approximately €1000 per day.

A limited control of the Dutch language
[Involved person 3] has testified to the examining judge that [victim 1] had no education and that she couldn't read and write.

[Involved prison 8] has testified to the examining judge that [victim 1] spoke Dutch poorly. She could make clear if things went well or bad with her. Within a long story it was difficult to separate cause and effect. She lagged behind in her development, she picked up little Dutch. She also knew little about the Netherlands.

(Use of) drugs
[Involved person 7] has testified that drugs has been found with [victim 1] and that he has seen her using alcohol.

[Involved person 6] sometimes did smell alcohol coming from [victim 1] and he once saw ponypacks with her in the period that she stayed at his place, during the summer of 2009.

[Victim 4] testified that [victim 1] drank a lot of alcohol and used drugs.

Family doctor [involved person 13] testifies that in his record about [victim 1], who was his patient since 2000 until December 2005, the following can be retrieved:
October 25, 2005… Stopped using drugs. Has no counselling. Husband is imprisoned.

In a supervised situation
Family doctor [involved person 14] testifies about twenty facts in the system about [victim 1] in the period between December 7, 2005 until November 18, 2009, and declares "to conclude, I can tell you that the patient [victim 1] always had somebody with her when she came for consultation."

[Involved person 8] testifies that he has been phoned by the husband of [name]. He said that he should stay away from her.

4.3.3. [Victim 2]

The court considers it to be lawfully and convincingly proven that the suspect committed various variants of human trafficking regarding [victim 2]. First of all, the court relies on the testimonies of [victim 2]. From these testimonies the following is shown.

[Victim 2] has met the suspect [suspect] in the summer of 2008. In July 2008 he asked her to marry him. After [suspect] departed to the Netherlands again, he phoned her with the announcement that she had to learn the Dutch language. [Suspect] would send money and [victim 2] enrolled at a school in Tanger. The money for the Dutch lessons was transferred to [victim 2] in the name of [fellow suspect]. At the end of December 2008 [victim 2] had finished the course and she did the exam in Rabat. This examination fee was also paid for her in the name of [fellow suspect]. The course lasted three months in total. She couldn't read and write the Dutch language. In Morocco [victim 2] had been on school for five years. She could read Arabic, but she couldn't write it.

[Suspect] has told to [victim 2] that he submitted an application for a residence permit in name of [fellow suspect]. The marriage would however be in the name of [suspect]. [Suspect] told her that he was afraid that her explication for a residence permit would be declined, because he didn't satisfy the requirement of the minimum wage.
[Suspect] told to [victim 2] that he had no money to come to Morocco to draw up the marriage certificate. Because [victim 2] wasn't allowed by her father to depart without a marriage certificate, the marriage certificate has been drawn up via mutual mandates.
[Fellow suspect] came from the Netherlands to Morocco to travel to the Netherlands together with [victim 2]. On April 2, 2009 [victim 2] arrived in Belgium together with [fellow suspect] and they were awaited by [suspect].

[Suspect] told her that he would give her a tour through Europe. He has shown her a club in Houten and he once took her to Amsterdam. After they had been in Amsterdam, he asked her if she could do that work. Since then, he brought her to the windows every time, to look. One day he said that he had a Moroccan woman in his service in Utrecht. She worked at the little boats. He told to [victim 2] that the work yielded approximately €1000 per day. Since that moment, he forced her to do that work. [Suspect] told her that she had to work, so they could buy a car and build a house in Morocco. He also told her that he had agreed with [fellow suspect] to bring her to the Netherlands for a lot of money, and that he had no money to pay [fellow suspect] back. He told her that if he wouldn't pay [fellow suspect], then [fellow suspect] would stop the residence of [victim 2] in the Netherlands. He also threatened to send her back to Morocco if she wouldn't do this work. According to [suspect], the problem was solved if she would work in prostitution for three or four months, so that [fellow suspect] could be paid back.

One day, [suspect] took her to Utrecht. He spoke there with people of the office of the little boats. On the day that [victim 2] received her residence pass, on June 9, 2009, [suspect] contacted the boss of the Zandpad. After this, he ordered her to go to this boss to let herself be registered. Via a telephone she received instructions from [suspect] how she had to walk and what she had to say to him. On June 11, 2009 [victim 2] started working as a prostitute.
At home, [victim 2] was trained for the work. A role-play then took place and [suspect] acted as a client. When [victim 2] burst out laughing, she received many beatings. He learned her the meaning of words like 'blowjob', 'fuck' and 'anal'. He told her in what way she had to sit behind the window. He ordered her to sell herself. When she said that she wouldn't do that, she received beatings.
On her first workday, [suspect] gave her instructions. He brought her to work every day. He dropped her off far away from the place of the work location, because he didn't want to be seen with her by the police.

The first week she worked approximately 4 or 5 days. The last three months she worked approximately every day. She worked a different number of hours a day. When there had been many clients, she left earlier. When there had been few clients, then she stayed longer. The goal was to earn €1000 per day. She also had to work when she was menstruating.
The money that [victim 2] earned she gave to [suspect]. He demanded the money from her.
[Victim 2] has told that [suspect] often maltreated her. Most of the time the maltreatment took place when she didn't earn enough. When he maltreated her, he sometimes snatched her passport. He once grabbed her by the neck and squeezed it. [Suspect] forced her to have sex with him, three or four times a day. When she didn't want that, then he raped her.
At the moments that [victim 2] refused to work, [suspect] phoned to her family and he said that she didn't cook for him, didn't want to listen and didn't want to go to bed with him. He also threatened to phone to her father and to say that she was a whore and that she worked in prostitution. This was the reason for [victim 2] to keep working in prostitution.
Every week [victim 2] received a new telephone from [suspect] and a new card. [Suspect] then also took a new telephone himself. He said that he did that, because otherwise the police could wiretap him. [Suspect] then entered his number into the telephone. There were no other numbers in the telephone. Once during an inspection by the police at the workplace of [victim 2] the telephone was open. [Suspect] was on the phone at that moment.

In the opinion of the court, the credibility of the story of [victim 2] is supported by the testimony of [victim 1] which has been found credible and which has described similar developments.

The court finds supporting evidence in the testimony of the suspect during the session of the court of March 7, 2011:
I have had a relationship with [victim 2]. I married [victim 2] on April 22, 2009. The marriage certificate has been drawn up in Morocco. I received the authorisation to marry.
[Victim 2] came to the Netherlands as the partner of [fellow suspect]. She came to the Netherlands in the beginning of 2009.
We have lived together on my address, [address] in Houten.
[Victim 2] has also worked in prostitution. That was in 2009. Halfway 2009, she went working in prostitution. At that moment, we already had a relationship.
I had a terrible debt. There were threats to be evicted from home. My female administrator has made an arrangement. That was in the period that [victim 2] was together with me. I paid off the debt with a fixed amount of money per month.
In November 2009, I simply wanted to get rid of [victim 2].
Concerning the Zandpad: I did bring her and pick her up. I've done that. I know that there are cameras. My car is in my own name.
I did drop by sometimes.
I was registered in her telephone as 'liefje' (sweetheart). We phoned often. Once we were on the telephone and then she was visited by the police. She then left the phone opened. With an open line, that has happened once.
It varied how many days per week she worked, up to 5 days per week. Starting from approximately 9.30 hours until 15.00 hours, 16.00 hours or 17.00 hours.
When she was menstruating, she worked every now and then.

Aside from that, the court finds supporting evidence, also for [victim 2]'s testimony where it deviates from what the suspect testifies, in the following:

From the marriage certificate, that has been translated from Arabic, it turns out that a marriage has been celebrated between [suspect] and [victim 2] by way of mutual authorisations. It also turns out from this certificate that the foreign divorce of [suspect] has been confirmed by the court in Assilah on December 3, 2008. The declaration of authorisation of the marriage certificate is dated April 22, 2009.

Authorisation for a temporary residence/residence permit
On January 21, 2009, [fellow suspect] made a request for an authorisation for a temporary residence for [victim 2] at the Immigratie en Naturalisatiedienst (IND = immigration and naturalisation service). On February 26, 2009, [fellow suspect] signed a questionnaire for an authorisation for a temporary residence, with a handwritten explanation concerning their relationship.
On March 23, 2009, [victim 2] has made a request for an authorisation for a temporary residence at the Dutch embassy in Rabat and on the same day a positive decision has been made regarding that.
On May 19, 2009, a residence permit has been granted until April 21, 2010.

Trip to the Netherlands
The witness [fellow suspect] has testified during the session of the court that he made a request for [victim 2] for an authorisation for a temporary residence at the IND, he arranged an airline ticket for her and he accompanied her during the trip from Morocco to the Netherlands. In Belgium they were picked up by [suspect] from the airport.

Living address in the Netherlands
From the data from the municipal basis administration it follows that [victim 2] was registered since April 21, 2009 on the [address] in Oudewater. Since July 9, 2009, [victim 2] was registered on the address [address] in Houten.

[Victim 2] has rented boat 140 on the Zandpad in Utrecht starting from June 11, 2009 until November 5, 2009.

[involved person 15] has testified to the police that around the summer of 2009 a woman came living with the man next door on the [address] in Houten. He remembers very well that in the summer months of 2009 he regularly heard sounds from which he could derive that they had sex. He found it strange that when the neighbour and his girlfriend finished having sex, the neighbour subsequently talked the whole night to her with a raised voice.

[Victim 1] has testified the following - soberly represented. [Victim 2] has said that she didn't go working, that she wouldn't give the money. He wants all the money. [Victim 2] had to work and give the money. [Victim 2] said that she didn't want to work and didn't want to give the money.

The court also believes it is plausible that [victim 2] had to hand over her earned money to the suspect. After all, bringing and keeping [victim 2] in prostitution is logically not a separate goal. Aside from that, this must be viewed in mutual connection with the fact that also regarding [victim 1] it has been proven that she had to hand over her earned money to the suspect.

Residence permits
On July 22, 2009 [victim 2] is stopped at the Rondweg in Houten. She has been brought home by the officers, where she cannot show her passport, because she supposedly lost that. [Victim 2] showed her medical insurance card to the officers.

On June 18, 2009, [victim 2] was inspected at her workplace by the police. During that inspection she was phoned four times on her mobile telephone.

On July 15, 2009, [victim 2] was inspected at her workplace by the police. One of the officers sees a telephone lying on the bed and the officer sees that there is an open telephone connection. The telephone connection is broken by the officer. After the officers had left, they saw that [suspect] entered the room of [victim 2].

In the telephone of [victim 2] were 2 telephone numbers, including a number stored as 'liefje' (sweetheart). During the inspection by the police on September 24, 2009 her telephone rang three times, and during all three times the word 'liefje' appeared in the display as the name of the person who phoned.


The suspect married [victim 1] when she was still a child. He then brought her to the Netherlands. She didn't speak Dutch and apart from that, she was also isolated and vulnerable because of her minimal education and limited development, far away from her own family and acquaintances. The counsel for the defence has itself submitted documents from which it can be derived that furthermore [victim 1] had an unstable personality.
[Victim 1] apparently trusted on it that the suspect - as her partner - would offer her a new future, but she has been betrayed by the suspect in that respect. The suspect's family, in which she was admitted, did not resist or barely resisted the acts of the suspect, they even partly supported him.
The suspect has put [victim 1], when she just had become 18 years old, to work on the Zandpad. To bring and to keep [victim 1] in prostitution, the suspect didn't shy away of any means: he implemented violence and he threatened with violence against herself and the persons she loves and he forced her to use drugs.
By doing this, he did make sure that she stayed isolated, so that he could keep her under control and she couldn't or hardly could appeal to social workers for example.
Only when the suspect stayed imprisoned for a long time since August 2005, [victim 1] somewhat succeeded in struggling out of his influence, in any case in such a way, that in 2007 she visited her family in Spain. Later on, she even dared to ask, when she was pregnant, to hand over only a part of her earnings.
As happens more often when one of the means of exploitation is an affectionate relationship feigned by the pimp, [victim 1] has returned to the suspect again, more often than she herself could understand. She also partly attributes it to sorcery. Aside from that, she felt that because of the continued existence of her Moroccan marriage with the suspect, she was forced to return to him (again and again).
The court can also explain her return to the suspect and to the life that wasn't wished by her, like one of the witnesses has done: "[victim 1]'s work was her life because she didn't have a life beyond that … in some situations you do something because you have no better alternatives".
The court adds to this that the suspect took away the other and earlier life from [victim 1], by bringing her in a situation that estranged her from her family and that made impossible a further life in her country of origin.

When [victim 1] withdraws herself from the influence of the suspect, the suspect searches for and finds a new victim in [victim 2].
She is already at the end of her twenties and - also because of this - a lot more independent than [victim 1]. Nevertheless, she also lets herself be persuaded by the suspect's wish to marry her and she resigns later on, in the Netherlands, to the exploitation as a prostitute by the suspect, caused by the violence exerted by him, the threats and the other means of exerting pressure.
She also stands alone in a world of which she doesn't know the language and she detests the customs.
Even sharper is the contrast with the suspect, who manipulates the people and authorities, the welfare authorities and the complaints commission of the police, the Moroccan government and the IND, the latter to remove [victim 2] from the Netherlands at the moment that she also releases herself from the suspect.


Concerning the immaterial damage, reference is made to a report of the family doctor concerning [victim 2] and a testimony of the social worker of GGZ Breburg. From these documents, it turns out that [victim 2] suffered severe psychological damage, which resulted in an attempted suicide.
(The lawyer) A Koopsen has explained during the session of the court that [victim 2] still views suicide as the only solution. She uses an antidepressant, which - in connection with her own safety - is kept safe by the woman next door. She is continuously vigilant and sees no future for herself anymore. The relationship with her parents is heavily disturbed. She lost everything because of this: her country, her family and her faith.

No comments: