Appendix 2




Note: Translated from a copy of the original document from the archives of Mitric’s lawyer in this case, Mr. Korvinus. It corroborates not only important aspects of The Golden Tip, but also the reliability of the author, of whom Prof. Rüter, former president of Amnesty International, testifies that he has always provided “golden information”.


Office of the Public Prosecutor nr. 13.24.933.1q


Today, Monday, February 15, 1988, appeared before Mr. C.K.T Eradus magistrate charged with the handling of criminal cases in the above mentioned court, assisted by H. E. Veenhuyzen registrar, the following person in order to testify of the truth in the case against the accused:

MITRIC, Slobodan

Born March 1, 1948 in Bačko Polje (Yugoslavia)
Residing in Amsterdam, Plantage Doklaan t.o. 48
Detained in the House of Detention 'The Amstel' in Amsterdam.


and who, after having declared that he will speak the truth and nothing but the truth and that he is not related by  blood or marriage to the accused, unless otherwise listed below, has answered the questions put to him as will be recorded below.


At the hearing is present the lawyer of the accused, Mr. J. Pen representing his colleague Mr. C. F. Korvinus.

The witness states as follows:

I am Christiaan Frederick Rüter 49 years old and a resident of Amsterdam, a professor. As far as I remember, I first met Bob Mitric in 1973 or 1974. The first encounter came about through the then Secretary of Justice, Glastra van Loon. I wanted information from Mitric concerning a case in Yugoslavia, which I was handling at that time for Amnesty International


I have spoken extensively with Bob. Since then, Mitric has more or less accepted me in the circle of his acquaintances, that is how I would best describe our further contacts. In the period that the Dutch government was planning to return Bob to Yugoslavia, I was heard in the first instances in the appeal session. I then said if Bob were to be sent back, he would almost certainly not survive that.


Over the years I know from the contacts I've had with Bob that he is very reliable regarding the core of the information he provides. I have been able to personally ascertain this a number of times myself. Bob has one disadvantage and that is why he is also not taken seriously in The Netherlands. This disadvantage comes down to the following: concerning the information he has available, you at first think: that cannot be true. That information lies so far beyond the field of our perception that one tends not to believe Bob. In such a situation, Bob then overstrains his voice, he begins as it were to embroider the affair. You must understand that Bob is a "field agent" trained for two tasks: information gathering and killing people, whereby he used to be very tightly managed. However, since his arrival in The Netherlands he, as it were, hangs in the air; he continues gathering information, but nobody picks it up.


This must be extremely frustrating for someone like Bob. He then began to do something for which he was never trained: he began to analyze things. This he absolutely cannot do, that has also contributed to the situation that when he now arrives to offer information, he does not get past the doorman of the institution where he wants to deliver the information. Bob will then travel hither and thither to the most unlikely people to see if they perhaps want to use his information.


Regarding the credibility of Bob's information, I now want to mention the following examples. Bob had just arrived in The Netherlands. He had information from Yugoslavia, he had a list of executions in his mind, but he found little willingness to hear what he knew.

Over the years, one after another of the people whose names appeared on the death list have been killed.


During the proceedings to deport Mitric, he said that plutonium was being traded in The Netherlands, he was able to specify that this plutonium came from Belgium and was bound for Pakistan. He was able in 1985 and 1986 to give many details about that: the same details that several years later can now be read in the newspapers. The Foreign Intelligence Service (I.D.B.) was the only authority that picked up this information Bob had.

But also this time, Bob adopted his typical pose: he begins by saying that he knows everything. Then when the answer is: "Tell me then", he sends you into the woods with peanuts. Eventually the Foreign Intelligence Service also pulled out; as far as I know, nothing has been done in this matter with Bob's information.

In the beginning of July 1987, I met up with Bob at the request of his lawyer; in that interview he announced the kidnapping of Heijn, he did not explicitly mention Heijn, but spoke of a captain of industry. Moreover, he was able to say that the kidnappers this time would not make the same mistake they made with Heineken, explaining thereby that they had stored away food for several months.

 On September 15, 1987 his lawyer telephoned me with the message: "Mitric knows who kidnapped Heijn". Mitric was only willing to talk to the Attorney General in Amsterdam in order to make a statement on this matter. The lawyer asked me whether I knew AG De Ruiter and if I could arrange a meeting for him. I then asked why Mitric did not go to the police. Mitric did not want that, because in his opinion there was a high level leak in the crisis center in Haarlem. I decided to grant the request based on two considerations: throughout the years, I had made the experience that the core of Mitric’s stories were true, he had repeatedly shown to have golden information, he also had in this case already announced the kidnapping in July 1987. My reasoning was, therefore, that even if Bob did not know everything, he least had one corner of the carpet in his hands and could lift it up.

Then I made an appointment with De Ruiter for September 17, 1987; the day (i.e. September 15) I got public prosecutor De Bruin on the phone. I told him that I definitely wanted to speak with De Ruiter himself, and that it concerned the Heijn affair. That same evening I was called by a certain O. v. J. from Haarlem, who wanted to talk with me on the phone about the case. I also told him that the AG has to call if he wanted contact. (Note from the translator: At this point in the testimony there is a sentence crossed out with the initials of the registrar to that effect. As far as can be ascertained the sentence reads: I know that from this moment on my telephone was tapped)

On Saturday, September 19, 1987 I was called by De Ruiter. We made an appointment for September 21. In that conversation I told De Ruiter what I knew. De Ruiter would seek advice.

The next morning he contacted me again. De Ruiter then informed me that he did not want to hear Mitric himself. He said Mitric could contact the detectives in Bloemendaal where he had already been earlier. I agreed with De Ruiter that I would establish the contact, but after that I would step out of this affair and not concern myself with the further course of events. I then informed Mitric’s lawyer. Afterwards I heard nothing for at least one day.
On September 24, 1987, Mitric’s lawyer phoned me again, he told me that Mitric had gone to Bloemendaal, but with jeers had been thrown out of the police station. Nobody knew anything about the directive of the Attorney General. I called De Ruiter again and asked him what his intentions were. De Ruiter called me back later saying that Mitric had to make an appointment with the investigators Lakerveer and Kluuk. He told me that he had ordered these men to give Bob a hearing. With this information I called Mitric’s lawyer.

Less than half an hour later I had De Ruiter on the line again. During that phone call he acted rather mysteriously, he said that Mitric had just been arrested. He also said that it was not connected with the case Heijn; he did not divulge anything else. Later I heard that the search for Mitric and his arrest was made in connection with a rape.

Of which official report.                                 Read, agreed and signed
(Signature of the registrar, illegible)                                                         (Signature Rüter)

Dutch Copy of Prof. Rüter’s Testimony, p. 1,

Including the (barely legible) Official Stamp and Signatures



Porf. Rüter proces-verbaal sept. 1988.jpg

Dutch Copy of Prof. Rüter’s Testimony, p. 2,

Including the (barely legible) Official Stamp and Signatures



Porf. Rüter proces-verbaal sept. 1988 p. 2.jpg