Anda di halaman 1dari 2

I have translated this section into English which is printed on page 13 of the attached document (proves verbal ge)

and part of Shabbir Mughal testimony regarding fact 3 which was related to the refusal of the in-laws to handover Sidras jewelry. Ik kan over die juwelen absoluut niks zeggen. Ik ken eerste verwerende partij al 25 jaar en ik heb hem nooit iets fout zien doen en nog nooit iets verkeerds over hem horen vertellen. Op uw uitdrukkelijke vraag bevestig ik u dat ik op 3 december 2011 samen met de vader van eisende partij naar het huis van verweerende partij ben geweest. Ik heb toen niet horen spreken over juwelen ik weet wel dat er toen heel veel spullen van eisende partij zijn meegenoemen. I can say absolutely nothing about those jewels. I know the first defendant (Rafi) for 25 years and I've never seen anything wrong and never heard him do anything wrong. On your specific question I confirm that I went together with the father of claimant (Sidra) to the house of the defendants on the 3rd of December 2011. I did not hear anything about jewelry and I know that the claimants had taken away a lot of stuff with them. This statement is clearly against what I told the court as a witness (page 5/6) just a few minutes before Shabbir Mughal testimony. I took Shabbir with me as a witness to the handover of jewelry on the 3rd of December 2011 and later he accompanied Sidra to the police station for seeking advice and possible report this incident on the 9th of December 2011. Police made an official declaration but with the comments that she should seek judicial help as stealing or refusal of other housemates to return what was given in custody is not a criminal offence in Belgium. Either one of us has committed perjury I suppose in the court of law purely based on the witness testimony. As you know I am helping Sidra regain self confidence and do whatever possible to fight injustice inflicted by her monafiq in-laws. Shabbir called me on Saturday the 2nd of March, after he had spoken to you, and told me that he would contact his lawyer the next working day which is Monday the 4th of March to explore the possibilities of rectification of his statement which was presumably misinterpreted by the court. On Tuesday the 5th of March our lawyer received a Fax from the opponents lawyer with this text and notification that this document is part of the official proceedings now: In het in rand vermelde dossiers melden mijn clienten dat uw cliente, meer bepaald de vader, n.a.v. getuigenverklaringen die werden meegedeeld, getuige Mughal ernstig tract te beinvloeden, zelfs bedreigt. In the log files listed in edge of this document my clients have reported that your client, particularly the father, with reference to the testimonies that were communicated has tried to seriously influence the witness Mughal, even to the extent of threatening. Shabbir has apparently contacted the lawyer of the opponents on Monday and was just fooling everyone and trying to inflict more damage intentionally to the Sidras case. Keeping the sensitivity of your relationship with Shabbir in view, Sidra was struggling with two questions:

1. Could you ask Shabbir how he will face Allah SWT on the Day of Judgment with all what he has done to harm her, without even knowing her? 2. Sidra is fighting injustice and will do whatever possible to teach lesson to the morally corrupt in-laws so that they cannot do the same to other girls. Mr. Shabbir has willfully done harm to her cause and chosen to become party to the conflict. What is your opinion and advice on how to react or move foward?