PHILIPSBURG--A 37-year-old woman who was forced to strip naked when she was submitted to a body search after she was arrested for an attempted break-in and burglary on May 19, 2022, received a conditional sentence of forty hours of community service, on two years’ probation, on Thursday.
Attorney-at-law Sjamira Roseburg had pleaded with the judge in the Court of First Instance to declare the prosecutor’s case against her client S. L. C. inadmissible because the woman was severely humiliated during the detainment search, as she was forced to completely disrobe, without any valid reason.
According to the lawyer, this constituted a violation of Article Three of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In addition, according to Roseburg, the suspect was taken into custody too late.
The official instructions for police officers contain rules on the measures to which persons deprived of their liberty may be subjected by law. These rules include the possibility to scan a suspect’s clothing prior to confinement at the police station and to search for the presence of objects that may pose a danger to the safety of the person concerned or to others during confinement. This should be carried out as much as possible by an officer of the same sex as the person being subjected to the search.
In Article 45 of the instructions, it is stated that a person may be required to undress if his/her clothing may pose a safety hazard during confinement, with permission by an acting prosecutor.
During the court hearing of this case, attorney Roseburg said that C. had filed a complaint with the police because she had to undress completely and show herself naked to a female police officer. In the complaint, C. stated she felt “defamed and ashamed.”
In a reaction of November 22, 2022, the police apologised for the fact that the search should not have been done in the way the woman described. Based on the file and the investigation it could not be ascertained that the woman’s clothes had posed a potential danger, nor could it be proven that an acting prosecutor had given permission for the search.
The court arrived at the conclusion that the defendant had been subjected to degrading treatment within the context of Article 3 of the Human Rights Treaty by the unauthorised actions of the female officer. However, although it was “understandable” that the defendant felt humiliated when she had to undress and show herself naked to the female police officer, the court said that the violation of Article 3 of the ECHR was only “of very short duration”.
The court also found that defendant had been detained too late, but by one hour and 15 minutes only. Weighing all these facts, the court arrived at the conclusion that the Prosecutor’s Office was admissible in prosecuting C.
The prosecutor found attempted burglary proven and called for a conditional fine of NAf. 700, on two years’ probation.
Attorney Roseburg pleaded for her client’s full acquittal and dismissal of prosecution. She argued that C. had not been herself at the time of the incident and had been traumatised, due to which she could not be held accountable for her acts.
On the images of a video-surveillance camera the judge saw that the suspect looked through the windows of her ex-partner’s home and tried to force the door in an effort to enter the house. According to the judge, the woman had said that she went to her ex-partner’s house because she was of the opinion that she was entitled to child support.
The court did not believe the suspect’s statement in which she said that she had only wanted to cause a commotion to attract the attention of the father of her child. According to the judge, the woman had the intention to steal goods or money. The court rejected claims that the woman was less accountable for her acts, despite a letter to this effect by Turning Point rehabilitation centre.
The court found C. guilty of attempted burglary and theft. “She went to the home of her ex-friend, the father of her child, and tried to break the lock of the door to his house because she was of the opinion that she was entitled to child support. Previous incidents between the suspect and the complainant and non-payment of child support by complainant did not justify the suspect’s acts,” the judge said.
