Statian facing 8 years on
human smuggling charges
PHILIPSBURG--The Attorney General requested a prison sentence of eight years for suspect A.C.H. (29) of St. Eustatius on human smuggling and cocaine possession and trade charges, during Thursday’s sitting of the Joint Court of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.
The Court of First Instance had thrown out the case against A.C.H. because it followed his lawyer’s plea that his client’s right to a fair trial had been violated. However, the Joint Court overturned this decision in the appeal case launched by the Attorney General, and ruled that the prosecution’s case against A.C.H. was admissible.
The initial case was handled by the Appeal Court on Wednesday. The Attorney General considered it proven that A.C.H. had smuggled five kilos of cocaine from Statia to St. Maarten and that he was guilty of human smuggling, of inducing bribery, and of membership in a criminal organisation. He dropped the charge that the suspect had also smuggled marijuana.
A.C.H. did not deny that he had been involved in aiding undocumented Chinese citizens to gain illegal entry into St. Maarten between January and October 2006. The operation, led from the People’s Republic of China, was designed to take Chinese immigrants to the U.S. mainland via St. Maarten.
He is accused of having asked a Winair employee working at Princess Juliana International Airport to guide eight Chinese nationals to certain Immigration officers who had been bribed to give these undocumented travellers illegal access to St. Maarten.
A.C.H., who had been in pre-trial detention for almost half a year, told the three judges of the Appeal Court that he had received some US $4,000 for his services.
Three Immigration officers and a Chinese national stood trial in this same case last year and were convicted on human smuggling charges by the Court of Appeal.
Attorney Eldon Sulvaran maintained that his client’s rights had been violated. He told the court that documents and the case file had not been made available until very late, and added that his client also had been thwarted in his free choice of a lawyer.
He further stated that his client should be acquitted on the charge that he had been a member of a criminal organisation.
The Joint Court will had down its decision in this case on May 27.
