© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten

options exist side by side and do not exclude each other. The diversity of the possibilities isan expression of the State’s aforesaid obligation under international law rather than thatit impairs it. In view of all this the Court does not adopt the assertion by the Association etal. that the State’s adopted course of action in the interim proceedings is procedurallyunacceptable. Neither can it be said that this course of action is humanly or morallyunacceptable to such a degree that legal consequences should be attached.’Explanation of ground of appeal 215. It is necessary to comment on the cited legal grounds. First, the District Court reviews adefence of the Association et al. that was not put forward in those terms. Consequently, theDistrict Court fails to consider an essential defence of the Association et al. Secondly, thereview by the District Court under legal consideration 5.6. is legally erroneous, whatevermight have been intended by the assertion of the Association et al. The Association et al.will deal with this second point in a separate ground of appeal (ground of appeal 5).16. The Association et al. refers to point 6 in its statement of defence in the incidents:‘The State of the Netherlands and the UN have since 1995 shifted the responsibility for thefall of the Srebrenica Safe Area to the other. If it should continue to be held that immunityattaches to the UN, it is to be expected that the State of the Netherlands in the mainproceedings will assert that it is not the State of the Netherlands that is responsible butthat it is the UN that is responsibility for the events before, during and after the fall ofSrebrenica. That follows, for example, from the letter that the Netherlands Ambassador toBosnia sent in the summer of 2004 to the Bosnian attorneys of the Mothers of Srebrenica.The State of the Netherlands also did that in the case of H. Nuhanovic et al. against theState of the Netherlands (District Court The Hague, cause-list numbers 06-1671 and 06-1672), cases that likewise raised the issue of the conduct of Dutchbat in Srebrenica. That isthe actual interest of the State of the Netherlands in the motions and thus not the treatyobligations outlined by the State of the Netherlands. (…)’17. The Association et al. pointed out also under point 28 of the Memorandum of Pleadings inthe incidents that the State of the Netherlands had every interest in keeping the UN outsidethese proceedings rather than it was so committed to its international obligations. Indeed,should immunity be accorded to the UN immunity in this matter then the Association et al.© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten page 8 of 99