STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. In early August 2009, an informant who was never disclosed to a police officer
named Verhoeven, head of the Amsterdam section of the State Criminal Intelligence
Department, that applicant was using a house located at Portobellostraat No. 40 in
Amsterdam to store firearms. Accordingly, a consignment of weapons have been
recently delivered there by a four-wheel-drive off-road vehicle in a Toyota Land
Cruiser in which Karam was a passenger and another person was a driver.

2. On 3 August 2009, the police raided the Portobellostraat house and according to its
report, they found 93 kilograms of cocaine, 3 sub-machine guns, a gun silencer, 10
live hand grenades, 56 kilograms of Iremite high explosive, 8 bolt-action rifles, 9
automatic pistols, 2 revolvers, 7 sawn-off shotguns, and nearly 27,000 rounds of live
ammunition. Allegedly, these items were packaged in sports bags and line is dustbin
liners wrapped in adhesive tape. A mobile telephone was likewise found and seized.

3. On 27 April 2010, the applicant was arrested in an Amsterdam coffee shop. He was
apprehended carrying a pistol loaded with eighteen rounds of live ammunition.

4. On 5 September 2010, police officers drew up a telephone metering report from
which appeared that a mobile telephone found in a car owned by applicant had been
allegedly used to call the telephone found in the Portobellostraat house during the
raid. Applicants fingerprints were likewise found in the Portobellostraat house on
the room where the weapons were stashed.

5. On 28 April 2010, the day following his arrest, Karam was taken into police custody
on charges of taking part in a criminal organization, possession of 93 kilograms of
cocaine, and possession of the arms, ammunition, and high explosive found in the
Portobellostraat house, and possession of a pistol and ammunition he had been
carrying at the time of the arrest. He then remained in pre-trial detention.

Proceedings at the first instance

6. On 25 July 2010, the trial hearing opened. Applicant denied the charges against him
except for the possession of pistol and ammunition at the time of his arrest.

7. One of the witnesses presented was Hendricks, which was the owner of the
Portobellostraat house. He stated that Karam never delivered weapons to his house
using a Toyota Land Cruiser. Two other individuals delivered the weapons to his
house. The applicant only went to Hendricks house to retrieve some diving
equipment which he had left there, before going on a holiday in Spain at the end of
June 2009.

8. The Regional Court remanded the case to the investigating judge in order to have the
anonymous informant, that had allegedly seen the delivery of firearms, be heard as
witness.

9. On 10 August 2010, the investigating judge ordered the witness identity to remain
anonymous. In his official report, he stated that it is not unlikely that witness has
reason to fear for the life, the health or the safety of the witness or his/her immediate
surroundings.

10. In the official record of his findings, referred to in the decision, the investigating
judge stated that the witness disclosed that he/she has heard stories about the
applicant and his circle of friends. The witness has heard that the applicant was
involved in criminal circles. And in combination to what he/she has seen and will
make a statement about namely persons including the applicant carrying a number of
large firearms, puts the person in great fear. The witness likewise felt vulnerable and
fears that if his/her identity is known, there might be a drastic interference in his/her
personal life.

11. On 21 August 2010, applicants counsel appealed the investigating judges decision.

12. Four days after, on 25 August 2010, a three-person chamber of the Regional Court
held a hearing in camera to which applicant was present, assisted by his counsel.
Applicant asked for an adjournment for failure to consult his counsel due to time
constraints. This was however denied on the ground that applicant had reasonable
time to consult his counsel since the time he lodged his appeal. The hearing then
proceeded.

13. Ultimately, the Regional Court dismissed applicants appeal. It did not see good
reason to examine the merits of the investigating judges decision to retain the
anonymity of the witness, contrary to applicants submission. Accordingly, the
Regional Court held that the investigating judge had sufficient reason to withheld the
identity of the witness.

14. The interrogation of the anonymous witness took place the following day in the
investigating judges room with a sound link. The witness was sworn in. The public
prosecutor, applicants counsel, police officer operating the sound link, and the
Prosecutor General of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal as listenerswere in another
room. The sound link involved sound distortion. The investigating judge would first
hear the witness answers with the sound link switched off, then if the investigating
judge found that the answer did not jeopardize the witness safety, repeated through
the sound link so that the persons in the other room could hear.

15. Applicants counsel initially submitted 90 questions by fact but not all were asked by
the investigating judge on the alleged grounds of irrelevance or concern for the
witness safety.

16. The witness description of applicant differed from how applicant truly looked.
Likewise, when asked by applicants counsel requested that the witness draw the
vehicle on which he/she allegedly saw applicant used, the witness drew a delivery
van with an outline obviously different from that of a Toyota Land Cruiser; it had a
sloping front instead of a protruding bonnet, and no spare wheel at the back.

17. The interrogation lasted from 12 noon until 4:10 p.m. There were questions from
both the prosecution and defense which were disallowed. For instance, the
prosecution asked if the witness knew applicant but the same was disallowed in the
interest of the witness safety. Likewise, applicants counsel asked what day of the
week did he/she see applicant unloading the weapons, but this was denied for the
same reasons as aforementioned.

18. On 05 October 2010, applicants counsel wrote to the Public Prosecutor asking for
further witnesses to be presented. This included the wife of Hendricks, who is the
owner of the Toyota Land Cruiser allegedly used to transport the weapons, and the
investigating judge.

19. On 10 October 2010, the hearing before the Amsterdam Regional Court resumed. The
investigating judge was presented as witness. He persisted in his refusal to disclose
the date on which the weapons were stated by the witness to have been delivered.
Such was sustained by Regional Court on the ground that it was in the nature of
things that the investigating judge could decide whether such a refusal was
necessary.

20. Hendricks was made a witness about the vehicle used for the delivery, which was
stated to be a Toyota Land Cruiser. He stated that it came into his wifes possession
not earlier than 07 July 2009.

21. Police Officer Verhoeven was likewise heard as a witness. He stated that he was
aware that the anonymous witness had stated before the Investigating Judge that the
weapons were delivered at the beginning of July 2009, but that the anonymous
witness was mistaken as to the date. The President of the Regional Court blocked a
question relating to the day of the week on which the weapons were delivered. The
registration number of the vehicle used was given by the anonymous witness to an
unidentified RCID police officer, who gave it to Police Officer Verhoeven; Police
Officer Verhoeven refused to say who this police officer was, and was dispensed
from so doing by the President of the Regional Court.

22. Applicant, inter alia, stated that he had been in Spain at the end of June 2009 of which
he could adduce proof. He attended a friends wedding and there were 50 witnesses
who could testify this. He had returned to the Netherlands by 09 to 10 July 2009. He
further admitted to possession of a pistol and ammunition at the time of his arrest but
he had nothing to do with the delivery of weapons at the Portobellostraat house. He
had left some diving equipment with Hendricks which he had gone to pick up in the
summer of 2009 before going to a holiday in Spain, hence his fingerprints probably
were found in the Portobellostraat house.

23. Addressing the Regional Court in applicants defense, his counsel stated that the only
real indication the anonymous witness was reliable was the statement of Police
Officer Verhoeven and the subjective assessment of the investigating judge. He
protested against the refusal to allow the anonymous witness to give the date on
which the weapons were delivered, which made it impossible to applicant to further
his defense.

24. On 24 October 2010, the Regional Court rendered judgment finding applicant guilty
of all the crimes charged and sentenced him to six (6) years imprisonment.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeal

25. Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam.

26. On 03 May 2011, the hearing opened. The used car dealer who sold the car to
Hendricks wife was heard as a witness: he gave a date for its sale which was 06 July
2009.

27. Applicant repeated his defense that he had nothing to do with the delivery of
weapons to Hendricks house. On 22 June 2009, he visited Hendricks house to
retrieve his diving equipment, after which he had gone on holiday.

28. The hearing having been adjourned, resumed on 28 May 2011. The investigating
judge did not appear. An army explosives expert was heard as a technical witness.

29. The hearing continued on 15 October 2011. The investigating judge gave evidence.
Relevantly, his statement mentioned the following:

xxx

At the beginning of the interrogation session the witness did not know exactly
when the delivery had taken place. Later that day he/she was able to indicate that it
had been during the period from 1 July until 7 July 2009. On one single day the
interrogations took place first in the case of the co-accused Hendriks and then in
the case of the present accused. I cannot now remember exactly all the differences
in nuance between the two interrogations. Later that day the witness remembered
a number of things more distinctly.
Things happened the way I described them in the official record. I have tried to
take everything down with as much precision as possible.

xxx

The witness was in my opinion reasonably positive on the date of the delivery. I
cannot remember having heard the date. The date has not been taken down in my
handwritten notes.

The reliability of the witness was assessed before the beginning of the interrogation.

You now ask me why I stopped the question of Karam's counsels to the date of the
delivery for reasons of protecting the source. I decline to answer that question.
(Emphasis supplied)

30. In the final address, applicants counsel generally referred to all the submissions
made during the first-instance proceedings. He specifically mentioned the veracity
and accuracy of the statements made by the anonymous witness to the investigating
judge. Reference was made to inconsistencies, such as that between the vehicle
described by the witness as a delivery van and the Toyota Land Cruiser identified as
the vehicle used, and that between the applicants physical appearance as described
by the witness and applicants actual physical appearance.
Accordingly, applicants counsel argued, were inconsistences that should have
inspired the investigating judge to greater caution when expressing herself on the
subject of the witness reliability.

31. Applicants counsel likewise protested against the decision of the investigating judge
to block certain questions, for example, the day of which the anonymous witness
allegedly witnessed the events in question, which prevented applicant from
establishing his alibi.

32. On 29 October 2011, the Court of Appeal found applicant guilty as charged. The
evidence relied on included, inter alia, the statement of the anonymous witness; the
investigating judge as to the witness reliability; the statement made by Police Officer
Verhoeven; telephone metering report; the police report from which it appeared that
the mobile telephone in question had been used by applicant and his fingerprints that
were found on the door of the room where the weapons were found.

33. The Court of Appeal rejected the position of applicants counsel on the reliability of
the witness. In part, it stated:

Counsel for the accused has argued that Investigating Judge, on the occasion of the
interrogation of the anonymous witness, has insufficiently discharged her duty as
laid down by Article 226e of the Code of Criminal Procedure to check the reliability
of the threatened witness interrogated by her, so that this statement cannot be used in
evidence that the accused has committed the acts charged under 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The Court of Appeal does not share this opinion of counsel, in view of what the
Investigating Judge has recorded in his official record of the interrogation of 26
August 2010 and the statement he made at the appeal hearing on 15 October 2011.
In so far as counsel may have meant to argue that the Court of Appeal is competent
to judge whether the anonymous witness was properly granted the status of
threatened witness, this argument must be rejected. In accordance with the procedure
provided for in Articles 226a and following of the Code of Criminal Procedure the
anonymous witness was considered to be a threatened witness and interrogated. Any
renewed investigation by the trial court in light of the preconditions for granting the
status of threatened witness is contrary to the procedure laid down by law and the
closed system of legal remedies.
The Court of Appeal finds that the statement of the anonymous/threatened witness,
which does not support the conviction to a decisive extent and which the Court of
Appeal has used with due caution, is reliable and credible. The information of the
witness as rendered by the [police] only differs on nonessential details from the
statement made by the witness on oath more than a year later before the
Investigating Judge, on which occasion the witness affirmed the accuracy of the
statement made before the [police]. On that occasion also, the witness was
interrogated by counsel for the accused. The statement is detailed and consistent and
in accordance with what was found, based on the information supplied, in the house
situated at Portobellostraat no. 40 in Amsterdam. The Court of Appeal bases this
finding also on the statements of the Investigating Judge referred to [above]. This
finding is not affected by the fact that the anonymous witness was dispensed from
answering certain questions put by the defence, nor by the fact that the Investigating
Judge, when heard as a witness, did not answer certain questions. The failure to
answer these questions was, after all, legally permissible in each case and connected
with, in particular, ensuring that the identity of the threatened witness was kept
concealed.
In so far as, during the interrogation before the Investigating Judge on 26 August
2010 the threatened witness did not answer certain questions, the Court of Appeal
finds that the answers to the questions concerned could disclose the identity of the
threatened witness. The Investigating Judge therefore acted properly in blocking
these questions.
In so far as the witness [Investigating Judge] failed to answer certain questions at the
hearing before the Court of Appeal on 15 October 2011, he stated his reasons for so
doing and relied on his right to excuse himself from so doing. The defence has
argued that he did not have such a right to excuse himself, but wrongly so. After all,
the Investigating Judge has a right to excuse himself from answering questions under
Article 219a, taken together with Article 284 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It
is in principle for the person claiming such a right to decide whether or not to excuse
himself in this respect. From the nature of the questions in respect of which this
witness excused himself it appears incontrovertibly that the questions relate to the
subject matter the identity of the threatened witness in relation to which the right
to excuse himself from answering was provided for. The Court is of the opinion that
the Investigating Judge, when appearing as a witness at the hearing of 15 October
1996, properly relied on his right to excuse himself.
In so far as the Investigating Judge, at the interrogation of the threatened witness,
blocked certain questions because the answers were irrelevant to the case, the Court
of Appeal finds that these questions were in fact irrelevant to the case in which the
witness was being interrogated. The Investigating Judge therefore acted properly in
blocking these questions.
...
The Court of Appeal further finds that the statement of the anonymous/threatened
witness may be used as evidence that the accused has committed the acts charged,
since it concerns the statement of a witness with respect to whom a court has ordered
that on the occasion of his/her interrogation his/her identity shall remain concealed
and the witness has been interrogated as such by the Investigating Judge in the way
provided for by Articles 226c 226f of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the facts
charged and held proven concerning crimes as referred to in Article 67 1 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure which, given their nature and the organised context in
which they were committed, constitute a serious violation of the legal order. ...
34. The Court of Appeal sentenced applicant to a term of imprisonment of six (6) years
and eight (8) months.

Proceedings in the Supreme Court

35. Applicant lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court on points of law.

36. On 30 June 2012, the Supreme Court dismissed applicants appeal in its entirety. It
sustained the Court of Appeals decision not to evaluate the alleged risk of the
anonymous witness because the Code of Criminal Procedure removed this
responsibility from the trial court. On account of the complaint as to not being able to
adequately question the witness and assess his/her reliability, the Supreme Court
noted that not only the applicants counsel but also the Public Prosecutor had been in
a different room when the witness was interrogated; that the investigating judge
based his questions submitted beforehand by the applicant and that applicants
counsel propounded additional questions and some were only blocked in order to
ensure the anonymity of the witness or because of irrelevance; and that the witness
was apparently not a police officer.

37. The Supreme Court likewise overruled applicants submission that his conviction
was based on a decisive extent on the results of the interrogation of the anonymous
witness.

38. Hence, within the six-month limit rule of the Convention, applicant submits herein
his application to the Court for respondents violation of Article 6, more particularly,
applicants right to a fair trial.