Dutch court to rule on repatriation of stolen Buddha statue next month
Print Edition
A COURT in Amsterdam said on Wednesday that it would pass a judgement on December 12 in a case involving a Buddha statue that two villages in China claim belong to them.
“The court will render a judgement in six weeks, on December 12, if it is possible,” said J Thomas, one of the judges, after a hearing that lasted nearly three hours.
In May 2016, two villages in China’s southeastern province of Fujian filed a repatriation case of religious, cultural and ethical significance against Amsterdam resident Oscar van Overeem. They said the statue van Overeem lent for an exhibition in March 2015 was the one that their villages had worshipped for over 1,000 years before it was stolen from the temple in December 1995.
Van Overeem agreed that the statue was from Fujian Province, but insisted that it is not the Zhanggong Zushi, or Zhanggong Patriarch, as the villagers claim. He said that his statue had been bought before the villagers found out that their statue had been stolen. It also didn’t have two specific features that the villagers attributed to the statue.
Van Overeem also stated that he had reached an oral deal and exchanged the statue for another artwork with a Chinese “collector-investor-intermediary,” who “was aware of the controversy and political sensitivities and therefore preferred to remain anonymous.”
Both the villagers and the defendant have submitted several rounds of written statements and evidence to the court. Before the hearing, the villagers submitted an investigation report by the Fujian Relics Authentication Center dated April 28, 2018, which, according to Jan Holthuis, the Dutch lawyer representing the villagers, “sets out in a very structural and detailed way why the VO (Oscar van Overeem) statue is the villagers’ statue.”
Holthuis said the Buddhist statue carries the human remains of an identifiable person that are 1,000 years old.
“We specifically pointed out the additional evidence provided in this investigation report, such as the Chinese characters on the back of the statue and on the basket that is in the village’s possession, written by one and the same villager. The judge should now deal with this specific evidence, as it has formally become part of the court case file,” Holthuis said.
The Dutch collector stressed during the hearing that his statue does not have “a hole drilled in the left hand,” and “its head is not loose at all,” contrary to what some villagers had said. He supported his argument with an expert conclusion of CT scans of the statue.
The villagers’ lawyer told the court that the source material of the CT scans needs to be examined by independent experts, not only by parties appointed by van Overeem.
Regarding the time he bought the statue, van Overeem repeated that he has no document of the purchase. He added that he would ask the person involved in the deal, who might have kept the 1995 sales documentation.
The Dutch collector also insisted that he is no longer in possession of the statue and does not have much information about the “third party” who had allowed him to exchange the statue for another artwork.
After the previous hearing on July 14, 2017, the court had granted permission for a motion filed by the villagers to preserve evidence by seizing certain specifically defined data from van Overeem’s computer. These data are now in the hands of a third independent party.
The villagers’ lawyer told the court that the defendant had given inconsistent statements on the completion date of his so-called “exchange deal,” insisting that the plaintiffs should have access to the person in the exchange deal in order to get back the statue.
“This claim against VO to disclose the third party’s name is now part of the Dutch legal proceeding and court judges’ deliberation before they make a judgement,” Holthuis said.
The Dutch lawyer said the judges will make up their minds on whether they think the statue is indeed Zhanggong Zushi and which party shall bear the burden of proof.
Liu Yushen, a Beijing-based Chinese lawyer who is assisting Holthuis in the Dutch legal proceeding, said it is normal that this kind of case takes a long time. “The case is complicated, not only because it involves two different legal systems, but also because of the difficulties coming from non-legal factors. It’s more about history, culture, religion, etc,” Liu said.
Six villagers, who flew to Amsterdam, were not questioned by the judges during the hearing.
“The judges are aware that the villagers exist. The fact that they appeared in the Dutch court shows respect for the Dutch court and the judges,” said Holthuis.
“And judges can get a feeling of what kind of people these villagers are,” he added.
“VO has been discriminating against the villagers, saying they are emotional and upset, and they are trying to use government power to get their statue back. This story can no longer hold now because judges have seen it is not true,” Holthuis added.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
