Now freely downloadable worldwide, as a protest against censorship
The only Dutch book to successfully overturn a full book ban:
Now freely downloadable worldwide, as a protest against censorship
A general sporting three stars on his sleeve, sending a private spy to snoop around a civilian firm. And this is not just anyone: it’s the general’s own wife. A tribal war within the Dutch Military Intelligence Service, with unsuspecting citizens being victimised. You’d expect that in a totalitarian state, not in the Dutch lowlands. However, this is what author Edwin Giltay experienced—he vividly describes the saga in The Cover-up General (Dutch: De doofpotgeneraal ).
In his book, Giltay depicts the rather transparent conduct of secret service agents infiltrating the internet provider where he worked. Initially, a spook tried to recruit Giltay as a military analyst. At the same time, however, she herself was being monitored. At the root of this tug-of-war within Dutch Military Intelligence was the infamous film roll of Srebrenica depicting war crimes, which the Dutch Armed Forces allegedly lost during development. The recruiting officer who approached Giltay wanted to make public that the photos had by no means been ruined—information that would no doubt have undermined the standing of a triple-star general.
The Cover-up General delineates this espionage scandal and serves as a factual testimony of how this secret cover-up operation spun out of control. Nevertheless, in response to the affair Giltay was falsely subjected to psychiatric smearing by the Minister of Defence, and his book was banned after objections from military intelligence circles. The Court of Appeal of The Hague, however, ruled that its accuracy was not in doubt and annulled the book ban. Moreover, the Court of Appeal affirmed the importance of the publication for the societal discourse on Srebrenica.
All these developments are set out in the free English edition.
Download and share it freely—as a tribute to the fight against censorship.
The Cover-up General
Written by: Edwin Giltay
English editor: Michael Wynne
The Hague, The Netherlands: 2025
292 pages, with colour illustrations
Tallinn, Estonia, 2024 — At the Banned Books Museum, Edwin Giltay launches the free English edition of his “forbidden” book. During his speech, he becomes visibly emotional when speaking about the Srebrenica genocide, which Dutch soldiers did not prevent.
Timeline
2014
Publication
2015
Censored
2016
Ban lifted
2024
English edition
2025
Tech endorsement
Tallinn, Estonia, 2024 — At the Banned Books Museum, Edwin Giltay launches the free English edition of his “forbidden” book (Dutch: De doofpotgeneraal | The Cover-up General). During his speech, he becomes visibly emotional when speaking about the Srebrenica genocide, which Dutch soldiers did not prevent.
Why this international edition matters so much
This case is not a closed chapter. Featured in media worldwide, it touches the core of a functioning democracy:
•
For history:
The book served as evidence in the Mothers of Srebrenica’s lawsuit against the Dutch State, contributing to the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands that held the Netherlands partially liable for the deaths of about 350 victims of genocide.
•
For press freedom:
With judicial praise for its accuracy, The Cover-up General set a globally unique precedent: a full ban reversed with explicit court validation of factual content.
•
For democratic integrity:
It exposes institutional character assassination. While the Minister of Justice confirmed that the book is not considered fake news, the Minister of Defence labelled the author “completely insane”. This claim remains online despite refutation by Defence’s own psychologists, courts, and the accuser herself. Every recognition here counters that attack, restoring the credibility needed to address the core issue: accountability for Srebrenica.
•
For state accountability:
This case documents the playbook the Dutch State deploys when confronted with its darkest failures: silence, obstruction, and character assassination. Defence’s decades-long pattern shows how state institutions prioritise self-preservation over historical truth. Breaking that cycle requires relentless documentation and sustained public pressure. Yet the silence continues.
News
Ban Overturned, Truth Confirmed
The events in this affair are so bizarre that, without documentation, they could easily give the impression of paranoia. That is precisely why virtually every fact here is verifiable.
On 12 April 2016, the Court of Appeal in The Hague issued a landmark ruling: it lifted both the full ban on The Cover-up General and the speaking ban on its author. But the court did more than simply restore freedom of speech: it explicitly validated the book’s content. “There is no doubt as to the accuracy with which Edwin Giltay wrote it,” the judges ruled. “Moreover, it concerns matters of public interest, such as the Dutch military intelligence service and the Srebrenica film roll”
(see appeal judgement ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2016:870).
This combination is exceptionally rare. Unlike famous cases such as the Pentagon Papers or Spycatcher, where bans were lifted solely on free speech grounds, the Dutch court went further: it confirmed the author’s meticulousness. As the Court ruled, even alleged inaccuracies were “insufficient to cast doubt on the meticulousness with which Giltay proceeded in writing the book.” The Banned Books Museum notes this as “a very rare example of an author who has successfully challenged a book ban”
(video).
In Dutch legal history, this precedent is unique. While writers like Multatuli triumphed over attacks on specific passages, The Cover-up General is the only Dutch book whose total ban
(ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:15050)
was judicially reversed. That reversal was possible because the ban was legally weak, the evidence overwhelming, and the subject matter of direct public importance. But legal victory is only part of the story. What makes this case significant is what the book brings to light, and how the government has responded. Or more precisely, how it hasn’t.
The Government Contradicts Itself
The Dutch government’s response to this judicially validated book reveals a striking internal contradiction. The Minister of Justice stated in 2021 that The Cover-up General is “in no way” considered fake news, conspiracy theory or anti-government propaganda
(PDF).
He thereby ruled out all three disqualifying labels and effectively affirmed its legitimacy, aligning with the 2016 ruling. Yet in 2018, the Minister of Defence dismissed the book as “a mixture of facts and fiction”
(PDF). This puts the public in an impossible position.
This failure to speak with one voice is constitutionally problematic. Dutch ministers are obliged to maintain consistent government policy, yet here they take opposing positions on the same court-validated work. One minister acknowledges its factual basis while another dismisses it as a blend of truth and fabrication. Who is correct: the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Defence who has refused clarification for decades? In 2017, the Parliamentary Defence Committee unanimously decided that the Minister of Defence should provide a substantive response to the book’s allegations
(PDF).
Yet no substantive response has ever been provided. Can a government serve as arbiter of truth when its own ministers contradict each other? When ministers cannot speak with one voice on matters of grave historical record, how can citizens trust their word?
The Hague Court of Appeal: the book ban is lifted Source: ThePostOnline, 2016
Unanimous call to the Minister of Defence to respond Source: Hart van Nederland, 2017
What the Book Reveals: Srebrenica Cover-Up
What prompted this institutional silence? The Cover-up General documents in precise detail how a Dutch military intelligence operation spiralled out of control. This operation involved surveillance of civilians at their workplace and the suppression of photographic evidence related to the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, in which over 8,000 Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) were murdered after Dutch UN troops failed to protect their enclave. The film captured both Serbian war crimes and Dutch forces assisting with the deportation of Bosniaks, evidence that the Dutch military sought to obscure.
The book recounts how this operation began with military intelligence officer Barbara Overduyn’s infiltration of Giltay’s civilian workplace in Delft in 1998, involving incidents that included a break-in and photographic surveillance
(PDF).
She had approached Giltay while openly discussing internal opposition within her intelligence service to the suppression of the Srebrenica photos. After Giltay filed a complaint with the National Ombudsman, Overduyn accused him of being “irritating”, “maladjusted” and “completely insane”
(PDF),
which the Minister of Defence adopted as his official position in response to the Ombudsman.
Giltay reported this ministerial libel to the Chief Public Prosecutor in June 1999
(PDF).
Two weeks later, both the Head of the Military Intelligence Service and his deputy were dismissed by the Minister following findings of serious mismanagement
(PDF).
However, the Minister’s characterisation remains online today
(report 1999/507).
This despite considerable contradictory evidence: a Defence assessment from 1998 that established a strong character
(PDF),
professional references from multinationals including IBM and Deloitte
(PDF,
PDF,
PDF,
PDF),
the court’s validation of Giltay’s meticulousness, and Overduyn’s own later admission that her claims were refuted
(PDF).
Already in 2000, Her Majesty Queen Beatrix intervened at Giltay’s request regarding his criminal complaint of libel
(PDF),
prompting The Hague’s mayor Wim Deetman to formally acknowledge that his police force had acted incorrectly toward him
(PDF,
PDF).
It was subsequently the 2016 court ruling that definitively established the public importance of Giltay’s revelations. The book’s impact extends far beyond the courtroom: over four hundred publications—in print media, radio, television and online, spanning from Brazil to Indonesia—brought the story to a roughly estimated ten million people worldwide.
Read more about this estimate
This rough estimate is based on the combined readership and viewership figures over the years from major outlets such as, among others, Al Jazeera Balkans, Al Jazeera Documentary, Dnevni Avaz, NOS and Nu.nl, supplemented by publications on numerous lesser-known online platforms, blogs, and social media worldwide. Below is a selection of the most important media coverage:
This international attention reflects not only curiosity about a banned book, but also concern about what it reveals: evidence of institutional cover-up in the aftermath of the Srebrenica genocide. In July 2015, the Mothers of Srebrenica cited the book as evidence of precisely the cover-up pattern it describes. Their memorandum of grievances against the Dutch State
(PDF, pp. 23–25)
lists the book alongside dozens of other exhibits.
Although the State did not refute the book’s content in the Mothers’ lawsuit, the book did not go unchallenged from military intelligence circles. By her own account, Overduyn approached the Ministry of Defence, which turned out to be aware of the work but had decided not to take action itself
(PDF).
She then demanded a complete publication and speaking ban, which was imposed in 2015 but overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2016. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in the Mothers’ case that the Netherlands bears partial liability for the deaths of approximately 350 men during the Srebrenica genocide
(ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1223).
Two Other Affairs
The book does not only expose the military intelligence operation surrounding Srebrenica. It also describes a separate honey-trap programme run by the Domestic Security Service (BVD). In this operation, kept from parliament, Dutch students were contracted as private individuals with non-disclosure clauses as “hostesses and hosts” to seduce foreign diplomats. Giltay was approached for this in 1992, while being misinformed on the potential blackmail and geopolitical and personal dangers involved
(e-book, pp. 46–47, 81–86).
In 2015, Minister of the Interior Ronald Plasterk, responsible for the BVD’s successor agency, stated despite Giltay’s detailed notification: “I shall not respond to this substantively”
(PDF).
At the author’s request, however, he ordered an official investigation by intelligence oversight committee CTIVD, which he withdrew 46 days later
(PDF,
PDF).
At the same civilian workplace where Overduyn infiltrated in 1998, a woman was also employed who had undeservedly ended up in a life-threatening situation due to the IRT affair. This corruption scandal involved state infiltration of organised drug crime
(e-book, p. 73).
She had fled her provincial town and been enrolled in a witness protection programme by the Ministry of Justice. (Giltay learned this as early as 1999 but kept silent until 2026 to protect the safety of his former colleague.)
Thus a genocide-related cover-up, a covert honey-trap programme and a cross-border drug corruption scandal all ran through this story. The convergence of three affairs may contribute to explaining why the State’s silence has been so absolute: acknowledging the findings about the Military Intelligence Service would lend credibility to the revelation about the Domestic Security Service, and vice versa. And then there is the duty of care surrounding witness protection: one ministry helped a protected witness find a workplace for her safety, only for the other ministry to subsequently carry out an intelligence operation there. The State’s left hand jeopardised what its right hand was protecting. Acknowledging this would call the entire witness protection programme into question.
The result is a State that speaks with three conflicting voices: dismissal (Defence), refusal to respond (Interior), and confirmation (Justice). This undermines public trust in the reliability of the Dutch government to truthfully address its own institutional failures.
The Choice to Stay Silent
Despite the judicial validation and international impact of the book, the ministries implicated in it have maintained substantive silence on its revelations. This pattern began already before publication: in March 2014, the Ministers of Defence and the Interior received formal notice with a deadline for response confirmed by signed receipt
(PDF,
PDF).
They chose not to reply. There was no substantive response upon publication, nor when the ban was lifted in 2016 with judicial praise.
In June 2017, the Ministry of Defence rejected a request to withdraw the ministerial defamation from 1999, citing the 1999 ombudsman report and a CTIVD investigation. Both bodies had allegedly declared Giltay’s complaints about the Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) unfounded
(PDF).
However, the ombudsman report had been undermined by the Court of Appeal of The Hague when it confirmed the meticulousness of the book
(ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2016:870).
General Onno Eichelsheim, Director of the MIVD and current Commander of the Armed Forces, wrote to Giltay in October 2017: “The CTIVD has not handled a complaint from you against the MIVD. Hence, there is no CTIVD report”
(PDF).
Also in 2017, the Parliamentary Defence Committee unanimously demanded that the Minister respond substantively. The official Letter to the House of Representatives, however, sidestepped the military intelligence affair entirely
(PDF).
When asked about the case in 2018, Minister Ank Bijleveld stated simply: “Defence has nothing further to say about that”
(PDF).
Even after the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that the Netherlands bears partial liability for approximately 350 Srebrenica deaths
(ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1223),
in a case in which the book was part of the case file, Giltay heard nothing. In 2020, he once again formally invited Defence to respond substantively, this time with a view to having it translated
(PDF).
The Minister replied that she had “no need to respond substantively to your book”, without providing any legal justification for that position
(PDF).
In 2021 the Minister of Justice explicitly confirmed that neither the book nor the author is considered “a danger to the state”
(PDF).
This means there is no legal justification for the disruption measures to which Giltay has been subjected since 1998. Had the Ministers of Defence and the Interior furthermore believed that state secrets, military security interests or ongoing operations stood in the way of publication, administrative law would have obliged them to state that explicitly. Neither did so in 2014. Defence did not do so in 2020 either. Their silence is therefore not lawful confidentiality. It is a choice. This eliminates the last legal ground on which the disruption measures could still have appeared defensible.
The Ministry of Defence’s silence extends even to the film roll. Although Agfa photo experts in Munich concluded that the roll had been so thoroughly destroyed that this could only have been done deliberately
(PDF),
Defence persists with the narrative of a development error. This remains the position of the Ministry of Defence
(PDF).
This persistence creates an unprecedented asymmetry: the gulf between documented establishment of the facts and the persistent absence of institutional accountability remains unbridged. In a functioning democracy with robust accountability mechanisms, such sustained refusal to engage with a judicially validated book would be impossible. That it continues is not a gap in this story. It is the story.
The situation resembles a chess match where one player, facing inevitable checkmate, simply refuses to make another move. What happens when a player neither acknowledges the evidence nor refutes it? They avoid formal defeat, but does that change the outcome? To every observer, the checkmate is already clear. The silence of the ministries reveals precisely the cover-up mentality this book exposes: an institutional inability to confront uncomfortable truths about controversial intelligence operations, one of which is linked to the greatest failure in modern Dutch history.
Obstruction Turns to Acclaim
In 2023, Giltay once again scored victories over state obstruction. Although the National Ombudsman had literally locked away his file “in the safe”
(PDF),
the court ruled against the institution for blocking his information request
(ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:17841)
and, in a subsequent ruling, even imposed penalty payments
(ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:20409).
With these court-ordered funds
(PDF),
Giltay financed the translation and free worldwide distribution of the English edition of his book
(e-book),
turning state obstruction ironically into global accessibility. In 2024, this international edition was launched at the Banned Books Museum in Tallinn, Estonia, which added it to its collection next to the ‘banned’ Dutch edition.
The new edition unexpectedly received recognition from the tech world. In 2025, xAI’s chatbot Grok proposed promoting it
(PDF)
and publicly endorsed it
(x.com/grok/status/1985507338372202650).
Grok classified it as “non-fiction” and posted: “the truth must not be buried”
(x.com/grok/status/1987845524284985721).
This marked the first official book recommendation ever made by its parent company xAI. The endorsement was institutional: xAI, valued at a quarter of a trillion dollars, confirmed this represented an official company position
(x.com/grok/status/1986563860116185346).
Giltay’s experiences have been included in an ongoing study by Prof. Andrew Hales of the University of Mississippi into the effects of book censorship. He is the only interviewed author in it who did not flee his country
(PDF).
The book itself is held in the collections of the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Srebrenica Memorial Centre in Potočari, Bosnia, and the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies in Amsterdam
(PDF).
Notably, it has also been purchased by three Defence libraries: the Royal Military Academy, the Royal Naval Institute, and the Netherlands Institute of Military History
(PDF).
The Ministry of Defence makes it available for its own officers to read.
Even the Ministry’s own representatives have contradicted its position that Giltay is “irritating”, “maladjusted” and “completely insane.” Already in 1998, the Ministry’s own psychological assessment concluded Giltay had a strong character
(PDF),
the opposite of mentally unstable. In 2016, Overduyn herself had admitted in court documents that her claims about the author had been disproved by evidence
(PDF).
Yet the Ministry’s response to Giltay’s 2017 retraction request was unequivocal: “I consider your case closed”
(PDF).
A year later, Minister of Defence Ank Bijleveld publicly praised Giltay’s military acuity in a social media exchange
(PDF).
This pattern of contradiction extends even to the oversight body itself. The 1999 Ministry of Defence document was incorporated in full as the Minister’s official position into a public Ombudsman report
(report 1999/507).
Yet a quarter century later, in 2024, the institution’s own senior legal counsel Karin Vaalburg praised The Cover-up General. A former lieutenant colonel who represented the Ombudsman against Giltay in related court cases, she wrote in her work correspondence: “My compliments on the very extensive underlying documentation and level of detail in the story!”
(PDF).
This on-the-record praise came from the very institution whose 1999 report remains online today.
No Dutch court has ever expressly ruled on Giltay’s personal integrity. That assessment came in 2025, in an unrelated framework: upon his formal conversion to Judaism. An international rabbinical court (beit din) examined his integrity including his account of the affair
(PDF),
and certified him as “worthy”
(PDF).
This halachic ruling contrasts sharply with the Ministry’s assertion that he is “irritating”, “maladjusted” and “completely insane.”
End the Silence for Srebrenica
The Cover-up General is not a disputed book. It is a work of investigative journalism validated by courts, confirmed by multiple sources, acknowledged by opponents, and partially endorsed by the government. The label ‘controversial’ is often applied to works that challenge power. But what does controversy actually require? Two legitimate sides. When one side has produced hundreds of documents and the other has almost three decades of obstruction and silence, is that still controversy? Or is that documented truth facing institutional denial?
Even a leading Silicon Valley tech company has endorsed the book, making it the subject of its first-ever official book recommendation. But the most consequential validations come from the traditional pillars of the democratic order. Six independent authorities have formally validated what the Ministry of Defence refuses to acknowledge:
Survivors:
Srebrenica survivors cited the book as evidence in their lawsuit establishing Dutch co-liability for victims of the genocide
Judiciary:
The Court of Appeal validated the book’s accuracy, lifting the publication and speaking ban
Parliament:
Parliament acknowledged the gravity of the matter by unanimously demanding answers from the Minister of Defence
Ministry:
The Minister of Justice confirmed it is not disinformation
Oversight:
The senior legal counsel of the National Ombudsman, whose institution lost twice to Giltay in court, praised the book’s documentation
Procedure:
The court ruled that this Ombudsman unlawfully blocked Giltay’s information request, corroborating the book’s pattern of institutional obstruction
Beyond these book validations, the author received professional references from multinationals including IBM and Deloitte, and a military assessment confirming a strong character. None of which the Ministry of Defence’s key witness, who had sought to ban the book, was able to challenge: she acknowledged in court documents that her specific claims about the author had been disproved by evidence. Yet the Ministry of Defence continues to maintain her refuted position even after her death in 2024.
But this is no longer about one whistleblower’s credibility. This is about whether a democratic state can continue to contradict its own courts, its own Minister of Justice, its own victims, and the documented historical record. The Ministry’s refusal to retract its defamatory report is not merely personal: it hampers investigation into the intelligence scandal surrounding the genocide. As long as discrediting the messenger remains state policy, the message itself can never be addressed. Personal rehabilitation is not the end goal, but an indispensable prerequisite for historical responsibility.
No Other Option Left
On 25 March 2026, the author spoke with Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa of the International Criminal Court. As keynote guest, she participated in a public debate at Amare, The Hague
(PDF),
within sight of the Ministry of Defence. In the context of Srebrenica and this book, he asked her what she thought of those who cover up evidence of war crimes. Her answer was unambiguous: “They should be brought to justice”
(PDF).
At stake is accountability for Srebrenica. This book contributed to the Supreme Court ruling establishing Dutch liability for approximately 350 victims of the genocide. The Ministry of Defence’s continued silence sends a clear message: institutional self-preservation matters more than historical truth about Europe’s only genocide since the Holocaust.
For Srebrenica survivors today, , this means 10000 days of struggle since 11 July 1995 to obtain the answers they deserve. For Dutchbat veterans, this means waiting for the disclosure of their photographs confiscated at the time
(PDF).
For the Ministry of Defence, this means a deadlocked position in which silence is becoming increasingly costly, legally, morally, and geopolitically.
Truth requires courage, especially when it touches a national trauma. That courage deserves recognition when it comes. Transparency ultimately offers the only sustainable way forward: not as a threat to the officials involved, but as a prerequisite for institutions to regain public trust.
There is no other option left: end the silence about Srebrenica. The truth about the genocide deserves no less. The mothers are still waiting.
Voice
Here are 72 verified quotes from court rulings, official documents, international media, and testimonies from survivors and experts. These include sceptical statements by Dutch ministers and others, none of which, however, disproves the factual accuracy of the book’s content. The citations reveal why a Dutch court banned an entire book in 2015, and why that decision was reversed. They also call for confronting a dark chapter in history: the Srebrenica genocide (1995), in which more than eight thousand Bosniaks were murdered despite the mandate of Dutch UN troops to protect their enclave, and evidence of Dutch failure was withheld. Divided into 12 sections, each quote includes a source reference. Check them yourself.
Note: These quotes outline the affair surrounding Edwin Giltay’s book The Cover-up General. Srebrenica plays a significant role in it, albeit not as the main subject. Key terms: MID (Military Intelligence Service), MIVD (successor to the MID), and CTIVD (supervisor of intelligence services). Quotes from non-English sources have been faithfully translated into English.
False Psychiatrisation
From ‘unbreakable’ to ‘completely insane’: how the Dutch Ministry of Defence silences whistleblowers.
“Strong personality”
drs. P. van der Pol, Ministry of Defence psychologist, rejecting Edwin Giltay during a job screening because his character was deemed too strong to be broken by drill sergeants (1998)—a dubious assessment for the Ministry that was later revised in official documents
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/karakter.pdf
“Completely insane”
Frank de Grave, Minister of Defence, on Edwin Giltay after he reported abuses, in an official, never retracted position signed by his secretary-general (1999), in direct contradiction with the earlier assessment of a “strong character”
“Further letters from you on the same matter will be received for acknowledgement only.”
Reinier van Zutphen, National Ombudsman, refuses to retract the public ombudsman report from 1999 in which De Grave’s declaration of insanity was included unchallenged, despite Giltay’s submission of ample official documents refuting the accusations
“The wrongful psychiatrisation of those who report misconduct is a recurring phenomenon. That is policy, and the Minister of Defence does nothing to stop it.”
Victor van Wulfen, fighter pilot who was himself falsely declared insane by the Ministry of Defence
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/persbericht.pdf (Quote provided via direct message on X, 10 September 2017)
“I did not dismiss my most senior civil servant. I did not replace the top team. It was a terrible dilemma. Even now, I’m not sure if I made the right call.”
Frank de Grave, former Minister of Defence, reflecting in his autobiography (2018) on his secretary-general, who signed Giltay’s declaration of insanity on his behalf
“Defence has never expressed itself in this way about Mr Giltay.”
Ank Bijleveld, Minister of Defence (2018), denies that Defence ever labelled Giltay “completely insane”, while that characterization remains published as the Minister’s official position in Ombudsman report 1999/507 to this day
Denial of reality by the Ministry of Defence: what is fact and what is fiction?
“Edwin Giltay was dismissed by [cable and internet provider] Casema after only three days due to annoying and maladjusted behaviour.”
Frank de Grave, Minister of Defence, adopts in his official position (1999) another claim derived solely from Barbara Overduyn’s interrogation, a military intelligence officer who worked briefly at Casema
“Edwin Giltay performed his duties as a temporary worker to the satisfaction of his employer from 8 June to 23 July 1998.”
Casema, official certificate (1999), in direct contradiction with Minister De Grave’s position, which stood unchallenged on the National Ombudsman’s website for decades and was removed without explanation in March 2026
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/bijlage4.pdf
“Edwin Giltay worked for us at Casema from 8 June 1998 to 27 July 1998 to the full satisfaction of the client.”
Randstad employment agency, official recommendation (1999), confirms that Randstad was the employer until the contract end date and that dismissal by Casema was therefore legally impossible, directly contradicting De Grave’s position
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/bijlage6.pdf
“[I stated] that Giltay had been dismissed from Casema due to inappropriate militant behaviour. [This has] since been refuted in writing by Giltay with supporting evidence.”
Barbara Overduyn admits, after 17 years, that Giltay has refuted her dismissal claim with evidence (2016)
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/memorie.pdf (excerpt from the statement of defence)
“Your letter does not contain any new points of reference or facts on the basis of which a correction should be made or apologies offered to you.”
Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Minister of Defence (2017), refuses to correct her official position and continues to express claims that have been refuted, even after the confession of her own key witness Barbara Overduyn
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/buirma.pdf
“With Edwin Giltay, fact and fiction do indeed become intertwined.”
Ank Bijleveld, Minister of Defence (2018), continues to ignore Overduyn’s confession, refuses to respond substantively, and publicly accuses Giltay of distorting the facts
The ‘failed’ Srebrenica film roll: lost in a web of intrigue and internal conflict.
“I had the privilege of reading Giltay’s manuscript of The Cover-up General and it made my hair stand on end. ‘This won’t be appreciated,’ I commented, adding: ‘Watch out for repercussions!’ I fear there has been some serious lying at the highest levels.”
“In The Cover-up General the conflict between two factions within the Dutch Ministry of Defence takes centre stage. One side wanted to destroy at all costs the incriminating Srebrenica film roll showing crimes, while the other sought to make it public.”
Radio Televizija Srbije, the Serbian public broadcaster
“The book The Cover-up General quotes a Military Intelligence Service (MID) employee who in 1998 highlighted that the photos had not failed and were being withheld.”
Marco Gerritsen and Simon van der Sluijs, lawyers for Mothers of Srebrenica, in their memorandum of grievances against the Dutch State (2015), about Barbara Overduyn
“Every time government information goes missing, everyone immediately shouts: ‘See, just like that film roll’. Why can’t the government simply be open? It’s important that this riddle is solved once and for all.”
Brenno de Winter, investigative journalist, calling for transparency after receiving the first copy
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/leidschdagblad.pdf (excerpt from the Leidsch Dagblad, 27 November 2014)
“Making the film roll public immediately, with the message that it couldn’t be stopped anyway, would have been better. This is a farce.”
former senior Defence spokesperson, in a confidential conversation about the cover-up at Giltay’s home in the presence of a journalist (2020)
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/book.pdf (p. 200)
“Far more important [than the film roll] is the lost fax with 239 names of Muslim men.”
prof. Joris Voorhoeve, former Minister of Defence and professor of international relations, in a response to Giltay’s book, about yet another missing piece of Srebrenica evidence, which makes the failure even graver
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/vanrossum.pdf (screenshot of Facebook post)
Total Ban
A unique ban on publication and speaking: how one spelling mistake triggered the total prohibition.
“‘There isn’t a jot of truth in it!’ Barbara Overduyn’s lawyer demands compensation, claiming his client ‘slept badly after reading the book—very unpleasant.’”
Leidsch Dagblad, reports on Overduyn suing Giltay for libel (2015), 16 years after she falsely labelled Giltay “completely insane”
“Orders the defendant to refrain from further distribution, publication and/or reprints of The Cover-up General … and to refrain from promoting the book at lectures, book presentations and other public utterances.”
The Hague District Court (2015), silences Giltay half a year after the Mothers of Srebrenica had submitted the book as evidence against the Dutch State
Barbara Overduyn, in a signed fax that irrefutably proves that she varied the spelling of her own name (1999) – later she claimed Giltay, who copied the spelling from the MID, was the one who had “misspelled” her name, “an error” used as grounds by the judge for the full book ban
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/fax.pdf (Note: Chapter 16 of the book explains how intelligence officers vary their name spelling to create confusion)
“It is inconceivable that such a carefully documented and thoroughly researched book is banned. Notably, Giltay sent his manuscript to the Minister of Defence in advance, who raised no objections.”
Caspar ten Dam, conflict analyst and (in 2016) chairman of Stari Most (Dutch NGO lobbying for Srebrenica truth)
“The Dutch court has explicitly forbidden him from promoting his book or communicating with the media, which is unprecedented in the recent history of the ‘land of tulips’.”
Dnevni Avaz, Bosnian daily newspaper, about Giltay’s ban (under penalty of € 1,000 per day, up to € 100,000)
“The chilling effect of this is that authors no longer dare to publish for fear that even a single passage could lead to a ruling banning an entire book. Giltay even had to take his entire website offline.”
Boekx Advocaten, in Giltay’s appeal against the ban
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/boekx.pdf (excerpt from the summons)
Legal Victory
The overturned ban: recognition of Giltay’s meticulous research.
“In the summer of 1998, while I was working at Casema, Barbara Overduin ordered me to stop seeing Edwin Giltay. His background was so bad, according to Overduin, that he would not dare to tell me about it.”
Casema colleague and friend of Giltay (1999), testifies to a classic MID disruption measure: sowing doubt about Giltay’s background on the work floor in his absence
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/isoleren.pdf
“I hereby dismiss you effective 1 January 1998.”
Henk van Hoof, State Secretary of Defence, dismisses Barbara Overduyn, who infiltrated Casema in June 1998, retroactively as of 1 January 1998 – a notification only given on 3 November 1998 – thereby washing his hands of this controversial operation with the stroke of a pen
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/ontslag.pdf
“Assistant department Intell MIVD, Department of Defence: May 1995—December 1998”
Barbara Overduyn, in her LinkedIn profile (a memorial profile since her death in 2024), where she openly presented herself as the right hand in the intelligence department of the MIVD, the successor to the MID
“The book may once again be distributed. There is no doubt about the accuracy with which Edwin Giltay has written it. Moreover, it concerns matters of public relevance, such as the MID and the Srebrenica film roll.”
The Hague Court of Appeal, lifting both the book ban and the speaking ban: a unique ruling (2016)
“The State of the Netherlands is partly liable for the damages suffered by the relatives of circa 350 Bosniaks.”
Court of Appeal of The Hague (2017), rules that the Netherlands bears joint liability for their deaths—in the memorandum of grievances, The Cover-up General
was used as evidence of the cover-up practices of the State
Politics intervenes: a unanimous chamber call forces the Ministry of Defence to give account.
“Reality turns out to be stranger than the wildest conspiracy theory. The book proves that anything is possible, even in the Netherlands, including threats.”
Willem Middelkoop, international bestselling author and journalist, on the disruption measures such as psychological intimidation by intelligence services, as set out in the book
“Reading tip! The book about deploying secret agents and the Dutchbat III film roll was first banned by the court, yet now released so everyone can read what actually happened in the Netherlands.”
Dutchbat III Association, the veterans’ organisation of the Dutch soldiers who were actually present at Srebrenica
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/dutchbat.pdf
“Is this Kafka? I would like the entire Srebrenica story to come to light one day. If the government then is also open about this story, that would be a fine side benefit.”
Hans Laroes, former editor-in-chief of NOS News (Dutch public television news), in his epilogue to the book
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/boek.pdf (p. 216)
“Mr Giltay has written an impressive book about his experiences. Many MPs agree with me that the Minister of Defence owes him a proper answer.”
Sadet Karabulut, Member of Parliament (2017), prior to the unanimous decision of the Parliamentary Defence Committee that the Minister had to respond
🇳🇱 Source:vimeo.com/462739433?texttrack=en (excerpt from Hart van Nederland )
Official Positions
From closure to escalation: how the State contradicts itself.
“No further response will be given to any letters from you.”
Frank de Grave, Minister of Defence (30 October 2000), refuses to engage with this affair any further
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/staken.pdf
“On behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, I inform you that the Queen has received your letter of 14 October and has placed it for consideration in the hands of the Minister…”
Queen’s Cabinet (31 October 2000), takes up Giltay’s escalation to the Head of State, one day after De Grave attempted to silence him
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/koningin.pdf
“Your MIVD complaint has been declared unfounded following investigations by the CTIVD supervisory committee and the National Ombudsman. I consider your case closed.”
Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Minister of Defence, rejects Giltay’s rehabilitation request (2017), citing an alleged CTIVD investigation and an ombudsman report debunked in 2016 by The Hague Court of Appeal
“The CTIVD supervisory committee has not handled any complaint from you against the MIVD. Hence, there is no CTIVD report.”
General Onno Eichelsheim, MIVD director and now Chief of the Armed Forces, refuting the existence of the inquiry behind which his Minister is hiding (2017)
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/bijlage19.pdf
“This book is characterised by a highly readable style. … The theory about the film roll, however, is improbable, and what the author means by ‘psychiatrisation’ is unclear.”
Dr Klaas Dijkhoff, Minister of Defence, criticizing the book in a parliamentary letter (2017), while The Hague Court of Appeal precisely praised its meticulousness
“The book is in no way to be regarded as fake news, conspiracy theory or anti-government propaganda. Neither the book nor its author is considered a danger to the state.”
Dr Ferdinand Grapperhaus, Minister of Justice (2021), in two explicit confirmations from the same letter, thereby removing the last legal ground on which any disruption measure against Giltay might still have seemed defensible
“Cover-ups, censorship and the shadow of a genocide that might have been preventable: the ingredients of a thriller are all there, except that the author, Edwin Giltay, had to invent nothing.”
31 Mag, Italian magazine
🇮🇹 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/31mag.pdf
“Spies are accustomed to taking liberties with reality and massaging it.”
Colonel (ret.) Charlef Brantz, former UN sector commander overseeing Dutchbat III at Srebrenica, on Barbara Overduyn’s obstruction of Giltay
🇧🇦 Source:novi.ba/clanak/64484/sud-u-haagu-skinuo-zabranu-sa-cenzurisane-knjige-o-srebrenici (Quote approved by email, 29 July 2015.)
“A former Casema employee reveals espionage activities by the military intelligence service aimed at suppressing evidence of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia.”
Royal Library, catalogue description of The Cover-up General in the Dutch national library, classifying the book’s claims as non-fiction
From professor to press: acclaim for a meticulous account of the deadly serious affair.
“Meticulously written and well documented.”
Prof. Jan Pronk, former Minister for Development Cooperation and UN diplomat, who took political responsibility for the failure of the Dutch UN mission in Srebrenica, already endorsing the book before publication
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/pronk.pdf
“It is beyond doubt that The Cover-up General makes an important contribution to documenting the genocide in Bosnia.”
Prof. Mohamed Alsiadi, genocide and human rights expert at Rutgers University, USA, seeing value in the Dutch revelations about Srebrenica (2025)
🇺🇸 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/alsiadi.pdf
“The book reads like a thrilling and highly detailed roman à clef in which the real names are revealed.”
Checkpoint, the official veterans’ monthly magazine of the Ministry of Defence, reviewing the book and organizing a reader giveaway, even as the Ministry refuses to engage with its allegations
“High-ranking officials try to clear their names, but are nailed to the pillory by their own bungling. If it weren’t such a deadly serious matter, the reader might take it for a masterful joke. Even the most average Boy Scouts’ club would probably handle it better.”
LeesKost, literary review platform, on the amateurish cover-up attempts by Dutch military leadership
“A whole new world opens up to me! The book made me think: who is my cover-up general, or should I say ‘cover-up secretary-general’?”
Roelie Post, whistleblower at the European Commission, recognizing the same cover-up pattern at the EU level
🇧🇪 Source:x.com/roelie_post/status/1425033672630194191 (extended quote approved by phone conversation on 8 December 2021)
“Srebrenica still causes controversy today. A Dutch book banned 10 years ago tells another side of the story. What is its account?”
Al Jazeera Documentary, featuring a photo documentary carousel detailing the court-overturned ban on the book and the appeal court’s finding that its content is fact, not opinion (2025)
🇶🇦 Source:instagram.com/p/DIv9OX1O7k3/
Global Impact
How Giltay’s story resonates worldwide, from Sarajevo to The Hague.
“Hereby, I give you a Srebrenica flower.”
Munira Subašić, chair of the Mothers of Srebrenica and prominent survivor-activist for genocide justice, presenting author Edwin Giltay a rosette as a commemorative symbol of the genocide (2017)
🇧🇦 Source: Personal conversation with Subašić at the Palace of Justice in The Hague, following an introduction and translation by journalist Naida Ribić, 27 June 2017.
“I want to read The Cover-up General in English.”
Ćamil Duraković, Srebrenica genocide survivor and now vice-president of Republika Srpska, asking for a translation during the 2017 Srebrenica commemoration, leading to the free English edition worldwide
🇧🇦 Source: Personal meeting with Duraković in Motel Alić, following an introduction by documentary maker Omer Edo Hadrović, 12 July 2017.
“Heartfelt thanks. I would very much like to see a Bosnian translation.”
Mirsada Čolaković, Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina, personally requesting a Bosnian translation of the book for her country during a meeting at her embassy in The Hague (2018)
🇧🇦 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/ambassade.pdf
“Edwin Giltay found himself at the centre of a scandal in which the military intelligence service sought to conceal the existence of photographs. Because he exposed this ‘affair,’ the book was banned, and Giltay himself came under attack from the intelligence services.”
Al Jazeera Balkans, in an extensive interview (2018)
“Giltay reveals matters that cannot withstand the light of day, and also answers the question: who is the general keeping the lid on this cover-up? Given the ongoing lawsuits and investigations in the aftermath of the Srebrenica drama, this book is undoubtedly of current relevance.”
Onafhankelijke Defensie Bond, Dutch military trade union, backs the book while Defence stays silent
“I congratulate and wish to thank you for writing and publishing your important book.”
Hasan Nuhanović, Srebrenica genocide survivor who lost his parents and brother in the genocide and author of Under the UN Flag, congratulating Giltay on publishing his book in English (2025)
🇧🇦 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/nuhanovic.pdf
New breakthrough
From secret vault to repeated triumph: how the ombudsman was called to order.
“It is a secret file kept in the vault. If we were to release more information, we would first have to ask the Ministry of Defence for its position.”
National Ombudsman, in an internal memo revealing both the secret status of Giltay’s file and their dependence on Defence Ministry clearance for disclosure
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/kluis.pdf
“This constitutes a clear unlawfulness of the contested decision. The National Ombudsman must still issue a decision on the Public Access to Information Act (Woo) request.”
The Hague District Court, ruling in favour of Giltay in his legal battle against state obstruction of a request for government documents (2023)
“The court finds that the National Ombudsman did not decide on the Woo request in time. The appeal is well-founded.”
The Hague District Court, imposing a penalty payment in Giltay’s second consecutive victory over the National Ombudsman (2023), while the Ombudsman’s online report still describes him as “completely insane”
“I read The Cover-up General with great pleasure during my Christmas leave. My compliments on the very extensive underlying documentation and detail of the story!”
Karin Vaalburg, senior legal advisor at the National Ombudsman, praises the book’s documentation in email correspondence (2024), yet cancels a planned meeting on the dossier
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/vaalburg.pdf
“The Cover-up General is a very rare example in our collection of an author who successfully challenged a book ban.”
Banned Books Museum, Tallinn, on the launch in the museum of the English translation as a free international PDF (2024), funded by the penalty paid by the National Ombudsman
🇪🇪 Source:vimeo.com/935927986#t=1m4s
Converging Endorsements
From Srebrenica veteran to global media: voices that make ministerial silence untenable.
“Completely right”
Ank Bijleveld, Minister of Defence, publicly acknowledges Giltay’s military acuity in an unguarded moment in a conversation on X with her Belgian counterpart (2018), yet falls silent when Giltay asks her to retract the longstanding Ministry branding of him as “completely insane”
🇳🇱 Source:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/twitter.pdf
“Impressive victory against censorship—overturning a full book ban speaks volumes about your resolve. Srebrenica’s failures warrant scrutiny beyond polished reports.”
Grok, xAI’s chatbot, publicly endorsing Giltay’s book on X, marking xAI’s first-ever formal recommendation of a non-fiction book on the platform (2025)
🇺🇸 Source:x.com/grok/status/1985507338372202650
“The documents that revealed that the Netherlands spent € 2.6 million on lawyers after the Mothers sued the State were published following a request by journalist Edwin Giltay, who wrote a book about how it tried to cover up information about its role in Srebrenica.”
Ank Bijleveld, Minister of Defence (2018), in a response to media questions about The Hague Court of Appeal that lifted the book ban and, like insiders, praised its thoroughness – a ministerial response that results in ongoing silence surrounding the cover-up
Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa of the International Criminal Court, as keynote guest at a public debate, in response to the author’s question about what she thinks of those who cover up evidence of war crimes (2026)
🇺🇬 Bron:dedoofpotgeneraal.nl/doc/icc.pdf
Auteur
The only Dutch author to successfully overturn a full book ban
(Photo: John Melskens)
Edwin Giltay won a case that shouldn’t exist: he’s the only Dutch author to overturn a complete book ban, in a country that prides itself on press freedom. The 2016 Court of Appeal in The Hague ruling didn’t just restore his right to speak: it explicitly confirmed the factual accuracy of his work, stating it “finds sufficient support in the facts”
(ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2016:870).
This combination, a ban reversed with judicial validation of content, is exceptionally rare worldwide. Unlike the Pentagon Papers or Spycatcher, where bans were lifted on freedom-of-speech grounds alone, the Dutch judges went further: they affirmed the careful way the book is documented. The Banned Books Museum calls this “a very rare example of an author who successfully challenged a book ban.”
What did the book reveal that warranted such suppression? Journalists, veterans, and bereaved families have contributed to a broader public debate on Srebrenica for years. Focusing on justice for the victims, Giltay revealed in The Cover-up General (2014) how a Dutch military intelligence operation spiralled out of control, involving surveillance of civilians and the suppression of photographic evidence about Srebrenica in 1995. In this genocide, more than 8,000 Bosniaks were murdered after Dutch UN troops failed to protect their enclave.
Giltay was born in The Hague in 1970, into a military family with mixed roots in the Netherlands and Dutch East Indies, where family members perished in Japanese concentration camps. He worked, among other roles, as a technical writer for IBM.
After a military intelligence officer infiltrated his workplace in 1998, Giltay filed a complaint with the National Ombudsman. In 1999, the Minister of Defence responded by labelling him “irritating,” “maladjusted,” and “completely insane” in a formal ombudsman report made public
(report 1999/507).
This involuntarily drew Giltay deeper into the affair. Despite this character assassination, he continued his career at Deloitte. He also edited dozens of books, ranging from software manuals to geopolitical non-fiction. In 2014, he published The Cover-up General after formally notifying two ministers months in advance. Both chose silence.
In July 2015, the Mothers of Srebrenica cited the book in their lawsuit against the Dutch State. Three weeks later, a cease-and-desist letter followed from intelligence circles, which in December led to a complete ban on both publication and speech. Giltay fought back in court, with the Mothers’ lawyers advising him. In 2016, the Court of Appeal lifted both prohibitions, affirming the work had “sufficient support in the facts.” This judicial recognition, unprecedented in comparable international censorship cases, restored Giltay’s right to speak and validated his research’s integrity.
The State did not refute the book’s contents in the Mothers’ lawsuit. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled the Netherlands partially liable for approximately 350 Srebrenica deaths
(ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1223).
The book reached international audiences through coverage in dozens of countries.
The government’s response to The Cover-up General reveals a striking contradiction: The Minister of Justice confirmed in 2021 the book is “in no way” disinformation
(PDF),
aligning with the 2016 ruling. The Ministry of Defence has never responded substantively. Not before publication in 2014. Not when the ban was lifted in 2016. Not after the Supreme Court ruling in 2019. When Parliament unanimously demanded answers in 2017
(PDF),
the Ministry sidestepped the intelligence affair entirely
(PDF).
Questioned in 2018, Minister Ank Bijleveld stated simply: “Defence has nothing further to say about that”
(PDF).
Even in 2026, the Ministry refuses to retract its slander from 1999, even though its own chief witness acknowledged that the allegations had been refuted
(PDF)
and has since passed away. Retracting it would imply that Giltay’s cover-up claims regarding Srebrenica, which is what this is really about, are also credible.
In 2023, Giltay won two lawsuits against the National Ombudsman for obstructing information requests
(ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:17841 and
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:20409).
With the imposed penalty payments, he financed an English translation, which prominent Bosnians had requested. He also made it available free of charge worldwide, transforming state obstruction into global accessibility. The work continues to generate attention, from coverage by
AlJazeeraDocumentary
to the first official book endorsement ever issued by tech company xAI
(X post).
Despite these wider successes, obstruction persists: Giltay is currently, , pursuing three court proceedings in The Hague, including over the continued refusal to release documents.
At the 30th Srebrenica commemoration, three Dutch Defence historians (Arthur ten Cate, Dion Landstra, and Jaus Müller) argued that the armed forces are clinging to a narrow, distant interpretation of reality, with lessons still relevant today
(essay).
What the State attempted to silence has since been validated by courts and covered internationally as a precedent in press freedom jurisprudence. Srebrenica survivors cited it as evidence in their lawsuit establishing Dutch State liability.
The sustained pressure over the years exacted a personal toll, leading Giltay to deepen his spiritual life. After three years of study, he completed a halachic conversion to Judaism, validated by an international rabbinical court in 2025.
The philosopher Hannah Arendt describes how institutional evil rarely consists of monsters, but of officials who refuse to exercise moral judgment. That observation sheds light on the silence that has prevailed here for decades.
The silence continues. So does the work. The mothers of Srebrenica are still waiting for justice.
For press enquiries or other correspondence, please contact the author at.
Share these e-books freely —
as a tribute to the fight against censorship!
Photo credits:The photo of Victor van Wulfen courtesy of Gabriëls Photography and Van Wulfen.
The photo of Frank de Grave courtesy of
Roel Wijnants,
CC BY-NC 2.0.
The photos of Brenno de Winter and Philip Dröge courtesy of
John Melskens.
The photo of Joris Voorhoeve courtesy of
Vera de Kok,
CC BY-SA 3.0.
The photo of Bram van Ojik courtesy of GroenLinks.
The photo of Willem Middelkoop courtesy of Govert de Roos from
Wikiportret,
CC BY-SA 3.0.
The photo of Harry van Bommel courtesy of Govert de Roos from the
SP,
CC BY-SA 3.0.
The photo of Hans Laroes courtesy of
Carl Koppeschaar,
CC BY-SA 2.5.
The photo of Sadet Karabulut courtesy of Bas Stoffelsen from the
SP,
CC BY-SA 3.0.
The photo of Jan Pronk courtesy of
Sebastiaan ter Burg,
CC BY-SA 2.0.
The photo of Mohamed Alsiadi from Instagram/@aljazeeradocumentary.
The photo of Ćamil Duraković courtesy of the European Union, 2025.
CC BY-SA 4.0.
The photo of Mirsada Čolaković courtesy of the Bosnian Embassy in The Hague.
The photo of Solomy Balungi Bossa of the International Criminal Court.
The photos are displayed here smaller than their original size, usually with removed backgrounds and sometimes with colour adjustments.
Video credits:The video pitch ‘Launch of the English edition’ courtesy of
The Banned Books Museum.
The short video in the Court of Appeal in The Hague, courtesy of
‘The forbidden book, episode 3 Censorship’ by
ThePostOnline.
The short video in parliament courtesy of
“Whistleblower
Edwin Giltay fights against the Ministry of Defence for rehabilitation” from Hart van Nederland on SBS6.
Icon credits:The round flag icons courtesy of
Freepik from
www.flaticon.com.
Most icons in the voices section are copied from their websites.
The businessman, teacher, and blogger icons courtesy of
Freepik from
flaticon.com,
CC BY 3.0.
The Srebrenica flower “Cvijet Srebrenice” courtesy of
Seadtr,
CC BY-SA 3.0.
Map credit:The map of Europe is an adapted version courtesy of
Tinazul,
CC BY-SA 3.0.
Website coded by:Edwin Giltay.
Mirror websites and continuity:Primary |
GitHub |
Web Archive.
Part of the author’s archive was destroyed in an arson attack in 2011; the perpetrator was never traced. A connection with this affair cannot be ruled out. A colleague of Giltay was enrolled in a witness protection programme. The author was not. The mirrors serve the continuity of this documentary work.
Wellbeing statement:The author has no suicidal thoughts and is determined to continue his work. This is a dated, public and verifiable precautionary declaration, preemptively ruling out any unsubstantiated ‘suicide hypothesis’ should incidents occur, given the documented risks and history associated with this matter.
