Broad criminal prosecution in the case of an honour killing
European Union Judicial Directives require police and judicial authorities in member states to prosecute perpetrators of an honour killing on a broad scale
All persons who have played a role in the background of a murder, with the aim of restoring a violated sense of honour or making a scenario in which loss of face could occur an impossibility, should be presented to court by authorities without shame based on the true facts of the case.
As an organisation, we have 3 cases pending of whistleblowers who have made the public aware that authorities are protecting some perpetrators of an honour killing by systematically ignoring all evidence of an honour killing and multiple reports.
1. Narges Achikzei from Zeist (3770 days )
On December 7, 2009, the beautiful Afghan student Narges Achikzei (23) is burned alive by Aryan Rostai, who is the sister of a friend of Narges her fiancé Haroen Mehraban in Zeist in The Netherlands.
Local residents say that the woman was married via an informal Muslim marriage and was already living with the man she was supposed to have officially married 2 weeks after the assassination.
Police and Justice knew Narges Achikzei and Haroen Mehraban because of their escalated legal conflict with Ralph Geissen, the woman’s ex-employer. Both parties filed charges.
The ex-employer accused Narges Achikzei, Haroen Mehraban and their lawyer Ruijzendaal of the consecration of an informal Muslim marriage, threat, fraud, extortion, making false declarations and defamation.
Narges Achikzei, Sahar Achikzei, Haroen Mehraban and their lawyer Ruijzendaal accused the former employer of stalking by email, defamation and slander because they claim that they do not know “Narges Mehraban and her husband” against whom at least 60 reports have been filed because of internet fraud.
A few weeks before the murder, however, the victims of the scammer N. Mehraban, who had gathered on the website ‘Against Internet Scamming’ , knew that the date of birth of the scammer Narges Mehraban was the same as the date of birth of Narges Achikzei because one of the victims had obtained the personal details of the bank via the local police.
A prosecutor even had an appointment with Narges Achikzei and her lawyer Ruijzendaal in his agenda to discuss their defamation case against her former employer at the time Narges Achikzei was liquidated.
Initially, an anonymous detective involved in the murder investigation honestly informed the media through a short interview at a radio station. He stated: “Female victim of an honour killing and because of corporate extortion!”
This quote is believed to have been adopted by several media companies and used as the basis for five news items in which the murder was matched with honour killing as a motive. Narges Achikzei’s family and friends logically reacted strongly to the news and contested that honour killing was the motive for the murder. According to her family and friends, Narges Achikzei was the happiest girl on earth and had only one enemy: her former employer Ralph Geissen.
Police spokesman Thomas Aling stated that he was familiar with the most frequently mentioned motives for the murder of Narges Achikzei such as honour killing, extortion of a company and a completely escalated legal conflict, but that a completely different motive such as a jealous love rival could also be a possibility.
On television, the authorities asked the population to help them find the right motive for the murder. It was explicitly stated that people did not have to call the police to point out the legal conflict in which Narges Achikzei was involved. A conflict that according to the police spokesperson had nothing to do with her islamic background.
Subsequently, Dutch investigators denied that in the initial phase of the murder investigation they had brought it to the attention of the media that Narges Achikzei was a victim of an honour killing. The team leader even swore on national television that there were no indications at all of sn honour killing and that Narges’family had nothing to do with it.
The team leader is even said to have told the commissioners of the murder that Narges Achikzei’s former employer is frustrating the murder investigation with his publications on the internet.
The final judgments of the courts state that executor Aryan Rostai first visited Narges Achikzei’s parents who live a little further down the same street half an hour before the murder.
Because of the totally corrupt approach of the police force of Zeist and the Public Prosecution Service of The Netherlands, the murder of Narges Achikzei is now officially a murder without motive because executioner Aryan Rostai has contradicted jealousy in all court hearings and the most frequently mentioned motives such as honour killing, extortion of a company and a completely escalated legal conflict have not been discussed by the police and the Public Prosecution Service.
Executioner Aryan Rostai said she was not in love with Haroen Mehraban and said she was not jealous of Narges Achikzei. According to her lawyer Ausma, the Public Prosecutor could not substantiate the jealousy motive and so there must be something else going on.
Officers involved in Narges Achikzie’s escalated legal conflict subsequently felt insulted because Ralph Geissen warned everyone that officers at police Zeist deliberately covered up an honour killing and 60+ reports in order to cover up their own corrupt actions prior to the burning alive of Narges Achikzei. On the basis of an insulted officer’s report, the Public Prosecutor’s Office started a criminal case against Ralph Geissen for alleged defamation, slander and insulting officials in office. This criminal case will soon be brought before the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden. Here you will find the subpoena from the Public Prosecution Service.
The Inspectorate for Justice and Security is of the opinion that the Court of Appeal can judge impartially, without any intervention on their part, whether this is the worst cover-up affair in our history or whether that this is a case of defamation, slander and insult of civil servants in office in accordance with the official statements of insulted police officers.