The Dutch Supreme Court will soon make a final ruling in a long-running dispute over the real motives in the murder of Narges Achikzei in 2009. The beautiful 23-year-old Afghan student was set on fire by the sister of a friend of her fiancé a week before her false criminal trial against her former employer Ralph Geissen and two weeks before her arranged marriage to her fiancé Haroen Mehraban in front of a running surveillance camera in a flat in Zeist.

Honest investigators involved in the investigation concluded 3 days after the murder that Narges Achikzei was a victim of an honor killing and because of extortion of a company and shared this news anonymously in the media. Experts on honor killings working for the police were brought in to advise the investigation team.

Neighbors and Geissen expressed their lack of confidence that the police would conduct the investigation fairly. The sense of dissatisfaction with the police action grew when the investigative leader ruled out honor killing as a motive because Narges Achikzei's family denied honor killing as a motive. In an investigative notice, police indicated that honor killing was cited by some as a motive because Narges Achikzei is an Afghan woman and stressed that the legal conflict had nothing to do with the victim's Islamic background. The police then clearly hinted that they were looking for witnesses to confirm jealousy as a motive.

Eventually the executor was taken to court by the police on the basis of totally fabricated stories and sentenced to 12 years in prison and forced admission to a hospital for compulsory treatment.

According to the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, there were indications in the criminal file that the executor may have been in love with the man Narges Achikzei was to marry. The executor denied that she was jealous of the victim or in love with Haroen Mehraban, expressing that she had "nothing against the victim."

Geissen chose to publicly accuse Zeist police for their poor performance in all of Narges Achikzei's criminal cases.

The policewoman who had helped Narges Achikzei file a false report against her ex-employer Geissen for libel, slander, insult and stalking by e-mail claimed that she felt terribly offended by him and filed two charges of insult, slander and libel herself. Her first indictment was dismissed and the second indictment resulted in Geissen being ordered by the court to pay a fine of 150 euros.

The following text by Geissen in a Youtube video is insulting according to judges: "Officer Anita Frielink (ps) of police Zeist is corrupt. She lied so that the former employer of con artist Narges Achikzei would be prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Service for libel, slander and stalking by email. When Narges was set on fire by a sister of a friend of her ex-husband. Because she wanted to marry a man of her own choosing and was in love with a Dutch man, the police fabricated jealousy as a motive to cover up corruption, fraud and an honor killing."

Geissen's lawyer filed a cassation appeal with the Dutch Supreme Court last week to challenge the court's ruling. Attorney Walther points out that Geissen is the victim's former employer and had already drawn attention to the fact that she was the victim of a forced marriage before her death. Although there was apparently insufficient criminal evidence for this, according to Geissen (and others) it cannot be ruled out that other persons were involved in this murder. Geissen repeatedly pointed police and judicial authorities to indications, that this was an honor killing because of obstruction of a forced marriage. According to Geissen, these indications were never taken seriously and did not lead to a proper investigation. Moreover, the lawyer said, Geissen was severely damaged by the extremely gruesome murder of someone he had known closely and who was dear to him.

According to Geissen, the executor's punishment would have been very different if she had been presented to judges with him as a witness based on the two most cited motives. The statements were not intended as insults and are not punishable because of freedom of speech.

In a few months, the attorney general will advise the Supreme Court whether the conviction should be upheld or overturned.