At the time of my first application, Denmark had only had two cases, at the Court of Human Rights, during the previous thirty years; in fact, during that period up until the end of 1984; the Court had only dealt with seventy-two cases in all; from the 17 member countries.

Denmark had never lost a case.

Considering that my application was given a case number 10486 first in 1983 – that is to say that out of 10,500 plus applications with only seventy-two cases reached the mighty court. Not very good odds at the time however, the little media coverage as to my application in Denmark did increase applications from Denmark as to alleged violations of human rights.

Bagmandspolitiet directly prevented me from having my complaint about solitary confinement dealt with by the European Commission of Human Rights, by opening a letter in September 1980 and not showing me the letter before more than 2 years later. (see: Chronological List of Correspondance with ECHR). This directly prevented this issue from being dealt with by the ECHR, an issue I personally considered the most serious and a grave violation of Article 3. Further, if the Bagmandspolitiet had not prevented for 26 months my communication with Strasburg, I would have received a case number down in 8,900 – 9,000. (see: Bagmandspolitiet contempt for privacy opening a letter from ECHR).

From Denmark, there were nine registered applications in 1983, five in 1985 and twelve in 1986. Today there are more than one hundred per year, so Danish citizen has become more aware of their rights.

Whereas in 1980, the ECHR listed three hundred and ninety applications in total, today they receive more than sixty thousand applications annually. In the period 1955 to 1998 less than 60,000 applications were made to ECHR, so the total amount of application made in 43 years is exceeded now every year.

Bagmandspolitiet was contemptuous as to the Convention of Human Rights, and the right to uncensored correspondence. Bagmandspolitiet kept one letter from the ECHR for more than 2 years without telling me. This prevented me from making the complaint effective as to my long solitary confinement, something which the Danish authorities did not want the ECHR to deal with.

During my long incarceration, I did read a lot of material on human rights and became aware of how little Denmark, in reality, adhered to both the European Convention of Human Rights but also other treaties they have signed up to. This, I realised at the time, could be found in the Danish mentality, that we always considered ourselves better than other nations, moreover that there were so little accountability and transparency in the system.

Interestingly, I could not find a Danish lawyer, at the time, with any real knowledge of Human Rights or even assist me in my application, therefore, I did 98% of the work myself under very restrictive conditions in my incarceration. It was very difficult, as the Danish authorities were fighting me on every step, I had no legal input because of no Danish lawyer had any real knowledge of Human Rights. My own lawyers, Folmer Reindel and Korsø-Jensen, had enough to see to with the defence in return receiving very little money. Folmer Reindel did try to get me various documentation, which I could use in my complaint to Strasburg, however, I never received any input from Korso-Jensen as to human rights. 

In making this website, I had to think long and hard as I had many considerations to make. Firstly, I had to consider the views of my family, my sons, many grandchildren and their children to come. What would they say? Not that my sons were unaware of the case. They felt it in their own bodies and souls and the family’s tragic upheaval at the time caused irrevocable damage to them all.

The flood of lies, misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehood about the case and the events at the time have made it necessary to put the record straight before I leave this world.

What gave me the most weight in deciding to enter cyberspace was the great number of lies, which surrounded my case on the Internet, as well as the lies that surrounded the case of closing down healthy operating financial companies in 1980.

Lies, which were compounded, would ultimately crush the truth and cover up something, which should have been exposed a long time ago.

Thousands of newspaper articles were published in Denmark at the time, (I listed more than one thousand five hundred newspaper articles to the European Commission of Human Rights, ECHR in 1983), mostly made up of stories with sensational headings, malicious lies and innuendoes; all very pre-judicial in my case. This was orchestrated by the Special Prosecution in their pursuit of covering up their injustices against my family, clients of the companies, the staff, and the companies themselves and me.

The Danish Institute of Human Rights did not exist when I was under torture in Denmark, it came much later, after my win at the European Commission of Human Rights and Denmark become concerned about Human Rights in their own backyard, although, the Danish newspapers mostly ignored my case.

Despite, the fact, that I won the first case against Denmark at the European Court of Human Rights, and a judgement by the full 17 member’s Court, if you search (https://www.humanrights.dk) for my name in their extensive online library, one will not find any result, neither by my name or my case at the ECHR (see: Screenshot 1 & 2.). The institute operates with a budget well in excess of 130 million D.Kroner. Obviously, they are totally obedient to their paymaster, and the last thing they want to show the world is to show the truth as to torture, political and judiciary corruption in Denmark in 1980s. 

Jens Elo Rytter, Professor of Law at Copenhagen University stated some years ago that the judgment in Strasbourg was a wake-up call for Denmark and came as a chock. According to Geoffrey Robertson QC, who represented me in the final stages at the court hearings in Strasbourg, Denmark was so confident of winning, that they invited every law student, in Denmark, to Strasbourg, and more than 100 law student went to Strasbourg. Considering that several countries TV crew was recording the court hearings, but not Danish TV, I am not surprised by this fact. Geoffrey’s assistant Kier Starmer worked with me and made his first visit abroad to Strasbourg. Years later he becomes the head of the British Public Prosecution and later the possible leader of the Labour Party. Geoffrey claim in his new book: Rather His Own Man: In Court with Tyrants, Tarts and Troublemakers, that my case was the most important case, as to human rights, that he has been involved in. Geoffrey is the leading Human Rights barrister in the United Kingdom and a United Nation Judge.

All this is played down in Denmark, even when reading the Danish Wikipedia as to solitary confinement in Denmark, Isolationsfængsling,  they have in the last years removed my case, and no reference to the fact that I went on a 55 days hunger strike, in order to get out of the solitary confinement torture. In everything, I see on the internet from Denmark, nothing, just nothing, is written about this terrible torture, it is like what took place during the second world war in Denmark, – all shamefully hidden from the public.

This is also the facts as to pre-trial detention, Varetægtsfængsling,  changes have been made and the references to my case are wrong.

Even the Danish State Radio and Television, have “lost” practically all the radio and television archives related to me and my case, according to one of my grandchildren. No wonder Isi Foeghel, who was part of the Danish team at the Court of Human Rights when my case was heard, later become chairman of the Danish State Radio.  Interestingly, Isi Foeghel had himself been involved in a financial scandal, after serving as minister of tax.

The Danish media ultimately created irrevocable harm to my family and me as you cannot get those lies and innuendoes back from the mind of the public. The media, at the time, totally controlled public opinion and the “truth” by creating their own stories, which become the truth in the public mind. Most people now understand the overwhelming power of the media.

My defence lawyers, many clients and I had always hoped that the truth would be printed one day; but no such luck.  After more than thirty-eight years, the whole event in Denmark has been swept under the carpet as something the authorities did not wish to go into or revisit; neither did the media, which participated actively in the injustices.

I hope that today, with the Internet and social networks that all the shutters, windows and doors will be opened up and the reality is exposed and debated.

The Right to a Fair Trial

When I made my application ECHR consisted of two separate bodies, The European Commission of Human Rights and The European Court of Human Rights.

The Commission decided on the admissibility of an application and if admitted, to ascertain the full facts and attempt to reach a friendly settlement between the parties.

At the time, the Commission meets five times a year for two weeks. This Commission of seven went through my many complaints. As I mentioned above, the material that I submitted lacked a professional jurists hand and no doubt this greatly influenced the Commission work with all my complaints. Since reading through all their deliberation, so much has no relevance and so much wrongful importance has been given to my complaints.

In fact, it was so painful for me to read any of this mow, that it has taken me more than thirty-five years to do so. Nevertheless, on the 9th October 1986, the Commission submitted and declared it as admissible without prejudging the merits of the case, such as the fact I was not heard by an impartial tribunal.

The Commission chooses the most important rights with regards to the fundamental Human Rights – the right to a fair trial. Without a fair trial, all the other complaints I made become less important.

Ultimately, the Court along with seventeen judges (including one from Denmark), judged that I did not get a fair trial; the foundation of justice. Possibly, more importantly, this was the first time that Denmark had lost a case at the court in its more than forty years of history. So I did win the first case against Denmark at the court and I did not get a fair trial. The President of the court was the highly respected Rolf Ryssdal from Norway, who spearheaded the majority vote against Denmark with the Danish, Icelandic and Swedish judges dissenting as expected.

I do believe that this judgement was good for the Danish justice system and for Denmark to lose a case for the first time at the ECHR. Profound changes did take place in the Danish justice system as a result of this judgment against Denmark.

Unfortunately, The European Court of Human Rights is a political forum and “true” justice will never be on the agenda, especially today with close to fifty member nations.

When I initially made my application, I was naïve to consider that the European Commission of Human Rights would deal with all the complaints I personally felt were important, including:

• • my solitary confinement and mental torture
  • that I became unfit to stand trial
  • Bagmandspolitiet’s (SØK) abuse of power
  • the false and unjust bankruptcies
  • the pre-judicial media campaign with lies 
  • my defence restrictions in general
  • my lawyers lack of resources to conduct a proper defence
  • the court’s manufactured transcripts
  • that we were not allowed to examine most of the witnesses
  • that I became a hostage to injustice
  • that Denmark had criminalised my person

Most Human Rights lawyers would argue that Article 6 and the right to a fair trial is the most important.

To be fair to the Commission at the time, they worked with limited resources and my application was rather non-professional from a jurist point of view, as I did not have proper resources at my disposal, not even legal advice. Nonetheless, I submitted hundreds of pages to the Commission through the years, all typed in my prison cell.

The Danish Media Again  –  Put Their Heads in the Sand 

After the judgment, the Danish media decided to put their heads in the sand and focused on the fact that the Court of Human Rights had not dealt with my guilt as to the case and the outcome of the Lower and High Court proceedings.

As to the whole case, in terms of the charges and court proceedings, if you do not get a fair trial, everything goes out the door. In fact, in a country like the United States, if a higher court, like a Federal Court, decides that a criminal accused did not get a fair trial, the sentence is non-void and cancelled and no re-trial takes place. This will happen regardless of the charges and judgment. Moreover, the convicted will be receiving compensation from the state.

How disgustingly the Danish authorities acted after the judgement can be seen from the fact that the compensation which the European Court of Human Rights rewarded me and that all the seventeen judges unanimously agreed upon, was never paid to me by Denmark. I ended up paying for the whole process and all my legal costs.

The Danish media made a “big” issue of the fact that the judgement from ECHR did not quash the conviction I had received. The Danish media did this, without pointing out that the court does not have such authority and is not empowered under the Convention to provide for the quashing of a judgment. 

The fact is, in not providing me with a fair trial, Denmark violated my rights under Article 6.  Judgement from the Danish “unfair trial” speaks for itself. Interestingly enough, the Danish media, and indeed many academics, had disregarded this fact.

To directly quote from the ECHR judgement:

“The applicant submitted that, should the court find a violation of Article 6  (art. 6),  his conviction should be quashed and any disqualifications or restrictions placed on him removed. The court, however, is not empowered under the Convention to provide for the quashing of a judgment or to give any directions on the last-mentioned matters  (see, mutatis mutandis, the Gillow judgment of 14 September 1987, Series A no. 124-C, p. 26, para. 9).

Just five days before the judgement from the Court of Human Rights, the Danish parliament decided to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights into Danish law.

In addition to incorporating the European Convention into Danish law, many changes have taken place in the Danish Administration of Law, including the judges’ involvement with pre-trial proceedings.

My judgement did benefit some cases at the time that Bagmandspolitiet had instigated, including the Jyde-Brothers case – these cases were stopped. Moreover, it forced Bagmandspolitiet to become more professional, according to many observers.

When I initially submitted my case application to the Commission, I never received any help from lawyers or jurists in my application to the ECHR. I asked my attorney, Jørgen Jacobsen, to sign the application in August 1980, which he gladly did; he felt very strongly about my complaint and had obtained the standard formula for ECHR complaints.

After getting out of solitary confinement, I asked around to find a lawyer with some experience with regards to a Human Rights case. It did not appear that there were any lawyers in Denmark that had much knowledge or experience with regards to ECHR, or worse, was willing to go against Denmark. Until 1980, very few complaints to the ECHR had originated in Denmark and only one had ever made it to the court where Denmark won.

A further issue: how could I pay such a lawyer? Bagmandspolitiet arranged to seize all my assets in Denmark and did not allow me to contact my professional advisors abroad – or my assets. My appointed legal defence, Folmer Reindel and John Korsø-Jensen did not get paid for the large amount of extra work that they did to defend me and certainly not for helping me in terms of any complaints to Strasbourg.

After that, the Commission made a decision in 1985 to bring my case forward to the European Court of Human Rights – I had help from lawyers and jurist. Advocate Folmer Reindel and Dr. jur. Eva Smith (now Professor of Law), from Denmark, assisted me but more important from the United Kingdom, the eminent Geoffrey Robertson QC and his assistant Kier Starmer (now Sir Kier Starmer QC).

Geoffrey Robertson had previously worked on many cases at the court and had an international reputation as a Human Rights Advocate, that is why I approached him with my case. Geoffrey later became a very distinguished and celebrated advocate and United Nations judge. 

Geoffrey Robertson was assisted by Kier Starmer, who later became the Director for the Public Prosecution in the United Kingdom. Kier was later knighted and after becoming leader of Labour, he is today Prime minister of United Kingdom.

Both Geoffrey and Kier, as British barristers, were chocked with regards to the Danish justice system and the fact that the ministry of justice controlled everything including the appointment and supervision of judges. The independence of judges is a foundation of justice in the United Kingdom and throughout the Commonwealth and the USA. Geoffrey writes in his legal memoir “Rather His Own Man” that “The Hauschildt case was probably the most influential result of all my trips to Strasbourg. In retrospect, it is hard to imagine how any justice system could think a trial judge impartial who had repeatedly made pretrial decisions on the basis that the defendant was likely to be found guilty.” Hauschildt v Denmark is now a leading authority, from a court which gained in power a couple of years later when Soviet Union collapsed and all its states – led by Czechoslovakia under President Havel – signed up to its Convention. It now has jurisdiction over forty-seven countries.”  

The huge amount of pre-trial publicity created by Bagmandspolitiet through the Danish media would have made my case impossible in the U.K. and the U.S since this was most prejudicial.

As to the long pre-trial detention solitary confinement, this was totally alien to my British barristers since this would never be permitted in the U.K. and the USA.

As I mentioned previously, my British barristers were shocked to find out the level of powers that Bagmandspolitiet had and that they themselves could select their target and even act as agent provocateurs. They compared Bagmandspolitiet correctly in the court to Stasi and KGB.

Sadly, since 9/11 (the attack on the World Trade Centres in New York), many changes have been made to the British and U.S justice systems which have all resulted in watering down the individual human rights. Much legislation, with regards to potential terrorism, is now used “negatively” in the name of law against everybody, a most unfortunate development.

My case judgment against Denmark instigated a very important political debate as to the Danish law and the inclusion of human rights. Moreover, it became an obligation for the Danish courts to adhere to the Convention of Human Rights. Without my case, these changes would have taken much longer.

The many changes to the European Court of Human Rights since my case

When I made my initial application to the European Commission of Human Rights, the ECHR dealt with relatively few cases a year. At the time, I believe that the organisation was not as political as now and more pragmatic. Now they have more than fifty thousand complaints a year and they have removed the Commission.

The Commission was there to make a qualified assessment before a case went to the court itself; moreover, to offer each member country a possibility to amend their laws and deal with the possible injustices or contravention of the Convention.

To me, the ECHR has somewhat gone astray and been watered down during the last twenty years by increasing the membership. It has become a tool for politicians.

Many new countries that daily mistreat their citizens and dish out injustices are now members of the European Council. Moreover, many members are countries outside of Europe and the European continent, countries with totally different traditions and cultures. The ECHR has become a political organisation to promote democracy; such should be the duty of the United Nations.

The European Court of Human Rights now includes 47 member countries with a total of 800 million people.

Considering the profound changes in the membership of the ECHR, with Asian and non-European nations as members, I do not believe that Denmark will lose many cases in court in the future despite a reported close to one hundred complaints a year from Denmark as to alleged contravention of the convention.

The evidence is quite clear that the ECHR is overworked, indeed maybe even “swamped” with cases. It’s worth noting that cases have increased as the membership of the council of Europe has gone up. Russia, Romania and Ukraine, which have among the biggest caseloads, are all relative newcomers to the court. It’s not surprising that Russia has the biggest caseload, considering its record on human rights.  There is currently a backlog of over 150,000 cases.

Many of the cases are not appropriate cases for the European court. People just think they can apply and they have individual rights to petition, and sometimes it’s about poor people in Russia who have been stripped of pensions … they think the human rights court will be able to deal with that, which it can’t.

The court should be free to deal with the most serious violations of human rights – it should not be swamped with an endless backlog of cases.

For the sake of the 800 million people the court serves, they need to reform it so that it is true to its original purpose. Already 47 members are agreed on this, and great work has been done. This is the right moment for reform – reforms that are practical, sensible and that enhance the reputation of the court.

They are looking to improve the efficiency of the court. New rules could enable it to focus more efficiently and transparently on the most important cases. They also want to improve the procedures for nominating judges. The assembly needs consistently strong shortlist from which to elect judges, and clear guidelines on national selection procedures could help with that. Finally, they are hoping to get a consensus on strengthening subsidiarity – the principle that where possible, final decisions should be made nationally. 

Denmark in the Dock

THE APPLICATION:

APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

MOGENS HAUSCHILDT (The applicant) v. DENMARK

I. THE PARTIES

A. The Applicant

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11

B. The High Contracting Party

13.

II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

14.0.1. INTRODUCTION   II._STATEMENT_OF_FACTS,_14.0.1,_INTRODUCTION

14.0.2. THE FISCAL BACKGROUND OF THE EVENTS II._STATEMENT_OF_FACTS,_14.0.2,_THE_FISCAL_BACKGROUND_OF_THE_EVENTS

14.0.3. THE EVENT  II._STATEMENT_OF_FACTS,_14.0.3,_THE EVENTS

14.1. COMPLAINT A. (Solitary confinement/inhumane treatment) II._STATEMENT_OF_FACTS,_14.1,_COMPLAINT_A.

14.2. COMPLAINT B. (Trial within reasonable time/bail) II._STATEMENT_OF_FACTS,_14.2,_COMPLAINT_B.

14.3. COMPLAINT C. (Inability to fulfil contractual obligations) II._STATEMENT_OF_FACTS,_14.3,_ COMPLAINT_C.

14.4. COMPLAINT D. (A fair hearing, presumed innocent – prejudicial) II._STATEMENT_OF_FACTS,_14.4,_COMPLAINT_D.

14.5. COMPLAINT E. (Defence facilities and access) II._STATEMENT_OF_FACTS,_14.5,_COMPLAINT_E.

14.6. COMPLAINT F. (Appeal conditions)  II._STATEMENT_OF_FACTS,_14.6,_COMPLAINT F.

III. STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

15.0. General comments to the Violations III._STATEMENT_OF_ALLEGED_VIOLATIONS_OF_THE_CONVENTION_AND_OF_RELEVANT_ARGUMENT,_15._General_comments

15.1. Violation A. III._STATEMENT_OF_ALLEGED_VIOLATIONS_OF_THE_CONVENTION,_ 15.1._Violation_A.

15.2. Violation B.  III._STATEMENT_OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION, 15.2. Violation B.

15.3. Violation C. III._STATEMENT_OF_ALLEGED_VIOLATIONS_OF_THE_CONVENTION,_ 15.3._Violation_C.

15.4. Violation D.  III._STATEMENT_OF_ALLEGED_VIOLATIONS_OF_THE_CONVENTION,_ 15.4._Violation_D.

15.5. Violation E.  III. STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION, 15.5. Violation E.

15.6. Violation F. III. STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION, 15.6. Violation F.

IV. STATEMENT RELATIVE TO ARTICLE 26 OF THE CONVENTION, REMEDIES PURSUED

16.0. General comments as to remedies pursued before authority   IV. GENERAL COMMENTS AS TO REMEDIES PURSUED BEFORE AUTHORITY, 16.

16.1. The Lower Court Decisions (Københavns Byret/KB)  IV. GENERAL COMMENTS AS TO REMEDIES PURSUED BEFORE AUTHORITY, 16.1, LIST OF COURT DECISIONS ON REMAND IN CUSTODY

16.2. The High Court Decisions (Østre Landsret/ØL)   IV. GENERAL COMMENTS AS TO REMEDIES PURSUED BEFORE AUTHORITY, 16.2 HIGH COURT DECISIONS ON REMAND IN CUSTODY

16.3. The Supreme Court Decisions (Højesteret)

16.4. The Commercial Court Decisions (Sø- og Handelsretten)

17.0. Other decisions of authority

17.1. Ministry of Justice (Justitsministeriet)

17.2. Prison Directorate (Kriminalforsorgen)

18.0. Remedies not used

V. STATEMENT OF THE OBJECT OF THE APPLICATION   V._STATEMENT_OF_THE_OBJECT_OF_THE_APPLICATION

VI. STATEMENT CONCERNING OTHER INTERNATIONAL PROCEEDINGS

INTERIM REPORT TO THE COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 1983  INTERIM REPORT TO THE COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 1983

VII. LIST OF DOCUMENTS

a. Mogens Hauschildt statements/notes/instruction

b. General correspondence related to the alleged violations

The Danish Companies (SCE)

c. Fiscal relationship/correspondence/registrations

d. Internal corporate papers/work procedures/instructions

e. Company correspondence (General)

f. Marketing material

g. Company contracts/conditions of business/ agreements

h. Accounting/auditing material/financial reports

i. Company press coverage – P.R.

The Judiciary

j. Lower Court Decisions and records/transcripts ref. IV.

k. High Court Decisions and records/transcripts ref. IV.

l. Supreme Court Decisions and records/transcripts ref. IV.

m. Commercial Court Decisions and records/ transcripts

n. Other decisions by authority etc.

The Defence

o. Notice of Appeal/Petitions etc.

p. Headings of the summing-up at the Lower Court

q. Defence auditor’s report (Lars Nielsen)

r. Various statements by the defence etc.

The Prosecution

s. Special Prosecution’s reports

t. Prosecution’s auditor’s report (P.J.Aarup)

u. Various statements and instructions/correspondence

The Liquidators

v. Reports/statements/correspondence etc.

Various documentations

w. Press Articles related to the case and the events

x. Papers related to Complaint A., solitary confinement

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF COURT HEARINGS AT THE COPENHAGEN COMMERCIAL COURT (SØ- OG HANDELSRETTEN)   VII._CRONOLOGICAL_LIST_OF_COURT_HEARINGS_IN_THE_COMMERCIAL_COURT

KRONOLOGISK OVERSIGT OVER RETSMØDER VED SØ- OG HANDELSRETTEN VII. LIST OF ALL COURT HEARINGS –  VII._KRONOLOGISK_OVERSIGT_OVER_RETSMØDER_VED_SØ-_OG_HANDELSRETTEN

DECISIONS AND JUDGMENTS, JANUARY 1980 – MARCH 1984 VII. VII._LIST_OF_ALL_COURT_HEARINGS_-_DECISIONS_AND_JUDGMENTS_ JANUARY_1980_-_MARCH_1984

LIST OF DOCUMENTS 21. C.

CHRONOLOGIES OF EVENTS/COMPANIES RELATIVE THE AUTHORITIES (see note)  VII._LIST_OF_DOCUMENTS_21.c._CHRONOLOGIES_OF_EVENTS-COMPANIES_ RELATIVE_THE_AUTHORITIES

VII. LIST OF DOCUMENTS  VII._LIST_OF_DOCUMENTS

21 w. PRESS ARTICLES VII.  VII._LIST_OF_DOCUMENTS_21.w._PRESS_ARTICLES

LIST OF DOCUMENTS b. 1980-1983  VII._LIST_OF DOCUMENTS_ 21._b). _1980-1983

VIII. STATEMENT OF PREFERRED LANGUAGE INTERIM REPORT TO THE COMMISSION, November 1983 VIII._STATEMENT_OF_PREFERRED_LANGUAGE

IX. DECLARATION AND SIGNATURE

Written Comments by Mogens Hauschildt 1986  Written_Comments_by_Mogens_Hauschildt_1986

X. APPENDIX ONE   X._APPENDIX_ONE

ABBREVIATION AND NOTES TO THE APPLICATION  X._APPENDIX ONE – ABBREVIATION AND NOTES TO THE APPLICATION

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF DRAMATIS PERSONAE  X._APPENDIX ONE – ALPHABETICAL LIST OF DRAMATIS PERSONAE

CHRONOLOGIES OF EVENTS/COMPANIES RELATIVE THE AUTHORITIES COMPANIES IN THE GROUP AND STATUS 1983  X._APPENDIX ONE – CHRONOLOGIES OF EVENTS-COMPANIES RELATIVE THE AUTHORITIES

LIST OF DRAMATIS PERSONAE    X. APPENDIX ONE – LIST OF DRAMATIS PERSONAE

LIST OF HIGH COURT JUDGES DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH DECISIONS    X. APPENDIX ONE – LIST OF HIGH COURT JUDGES DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH DECISIONS

LIST OF JUDGES DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH DECISIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT  X. APPENDIX ONE – LIST OF JUDGES DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH DECISIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT

LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTION INVOLVED (S.Ø.K.)      X. _APPENDIX_ONE_-_LIST_OF_MEMBERS_OF_THE_SPECIAL_PROSECUTION_INVOLVED_(SOK)

MOGENS HAUSCHILDT/M. HAUSCHILDT & CIE, ZURICH   X._APPENDIX_ONE_-_MOGENS HAUSCHILDT_ M._HAUSCHILDT_&_CIE,_ZURICH

XI. APPENDIX TWO

Report to the U.S. House of Representatives by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission October 1, 1981

DANSK TORTUR

Marketing material from Scandinavian Capital Exchange and other companies in the Group

Various newspaper and magazines articles Reports

Advocate Folmer Reindel told the full Court of 17 Judges from the 17 member countries of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg – 26th September 1988: