Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of 19 April 2004, given by the ‘Appeals Chamber’ of the Yugoslavia Tribunal. Thesetwo decisions are referred to as: ‘the decision of the Yugoslavia Tribunal in thecase Krstic (at first instance, or on appeal, respectively)’;- the Report of 22 November 2001 of a commission of the French Parliament (Rapportd’information commune sur les événements de Srebrenica). This commissioninvestigated the responsibility of France for the events in Srebrenica. After the fall ofthe Safe Area doubts arose both within and outside France whether France hadactually wanted to protect the Srebrenica Safe Area threatened by the Bosnian Serbs.The French Parliament took serious note that reproach, given that France had been animportant supplier of troops and in Bosnia 56 French soldiers had lost their lives. TheFrench commission investigated, inter alia, how, and why, the Safe Area defended bythe UN could have fallen, despite the presence of UN soldiers, and how the greatestmass slaughter in Europe since the Second World War could have occurred, despitethe presence of 35,000 UN soldiers in the former Yugoslavia. The Report is referredto as: ‘the Report of the French Parliament’;- the UN investigated the events around the fall of the Srebrenica Safe Area. The thenSecretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, recorded that investigation and theconclusions on the errors that were committed in his Report of 15 November 1999:‘Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly resolution 53/35,the fall of Srebrenica’. This Report is referred to as: ‘the UN Report’. Plaintiff notesin respect of the UN Report that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Haguein its judgment of 26 February 2007 determined that the UN Report had greatauthority;- As a result of the events in Srebrenica a Parliamentary Commission of Enquiry wasset up in The Netherlands on 5 June 2002. That commission was presided over byMr. A.D. Bakker. The aim of the enquiry was to enable the House to pass politicaljudgment on the role of the House, the Dutch government and the responsibilities ofthe civil service and the military in the run up to, during, and following the events inSrebrenica, in supplementation of, inter alia, the investigation conducted by the© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com10
NIOD. This Report is referred to as ‘the Dutch Parliamentary Enquiry’ (see,Lower House, Assembly Year 2002-2003, 28506);- Moreover, a team of Dutch and Bosnian lawyers has spoken in detail with survivingrelatives of the men, women and children murdered in the Safe Area, as well as withother concerned parties and witnesses. Furthermore, these lawyers together with someof the surviving relatives have repeatedly visited Srebrenica and Potočari where asignificant part of the facts to be described below took place.Eleven persons made a statement about what they experienced at the fall ofSrebrenica. Those statements are appended to this writ of summons as Exhibits 1through 11.I.1. The war in the former Yugoslavia6. The former Yugoslavia was occupied during the Second World War by national-socialistand fascist powers. A civil war was then also raging. The parties accused each other ofdreadful crimes. More than 1 million persons out of a population of 16 million lost theirlives. When one views the victims by republic, then Bosnia Herzegovina was the worstaffected with approximately10.3 % of its population dead (see page 65 of the NIODReport).7. In the post-war Yugoslavia under Tito nationalism was discouraged whether or not byforce and the emphasis lay on the unity of the communist state. With the exception of arelatively calm period from 1945 to 1980, the ethnic groups remained conscious of theirseparate identities.8. The Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia (literally: South Slavia) consisted of sixrepublics from 1945 to 1990, namely, Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia,Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. These republics were populated by divergent ethnicgroups who sometimes formed the majority in the particular republic. For example,Serbia was populated in particular by Serbs, and Croatia in particular by Croats. InBosnia Herzegovina, the area in which Srebrenica lay, several population groups wererepresented before the war in Yugoslavia, namely, Bosniacs (44%), Serbs (31%), Croats© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com11
Page 1 and 2: WRIT OF SUMMONSDISTRICT COURT, THE
Page 3 and 4: IN ORDER:on Wednesday, thetwo thous
Page 5 and 6: - every request by the inhabitants
Page 7 and 8: 8. The fate of the civilian populat
Page 9: IV Tender of evidence 446I Facts5.
Page 13 and 14: 12. The Yugoslav People’s Army (o
Page 15 and 16: ‘Prior to departing, he addressed
Page 17 and 18: - UN resolution 816 (31 March 1993)
Page 19 and 20: No. 4:Decides to ensure full respec
Page 21 and 22: …Should UNPROFOR’s presence pro
Page 23 and 24: 30. To reiterate here, the question
Page 25 and 26: UN and the State of the Netherlands
Page 27 and 28: Brigade. In addition, the State of
Page 29 and 30: 43. The choice in favour of deploym
Page 31 and 32: The government parties replied to t
Page 33 and 34: population during the training as
Page 35 and 36: Potocari/Srebrenica. This chain of
Page 37 and 38: 63. As appears from the above, and
Page 39 and 40: eference to the failure to act of D
Page 41 and 42: ‘I have been directed, today 29 M
Page 43 and 44: leaders (Milosevic, Karadzic and Ml
Page 45 and 46: observation post was not carried ou
Page 47 and 48: attack on the Safe Area on 6 July 1
Page 49 and 50: single shot being fired and OP-F wa
Page 51 and 52: immediate and robust reaction Nicol
Page 53 and 54: know what Dutchbat itself would do
Page 55 and 56: that the enclave was continuously e
Page 57 and 58: ‘You are to use all means at your
Page 59 and 60: Commander therefore gave the order
Page 61 and 62:
he proposed to have Karremens arres
Page 63 and 64:
Brantz, to establish that there was
Page 65 and 66:
officers and the State of the Nethe
Page 67 and 68:
had any purpose to go ahead with th
Page 69 and 70:
Voorhoeve (see also number 307 of t
Page 71 and 72:
y VRS soldiers in Dutch uniform and
Page 73 and 74:
population: medical matters (Dutchb
Page 75 and 76:
OP-N161. The capture of OP-N is des
Page 77 and 78:
Brantz (Tuzla)↕Karremans, Franken
Page 79 and 80:
‘The first line of resistance to
Page 81 and 82:
180. Plaintiff Mujić states (see E
Page 83 and 84:
The flight to the UN compound189. D
Page 85 and 86:
193. It is incomprehensible that Du
Page 87 and 88:
soldiers let that be known when the
Page 89 and 90:
Other points concerned forced evict
Page 91 and 92:
‘On 12 and 13 July 1995, upon the
Page 93 and 94:
statements put in the proceedings a
Page 95 and 96:
lying on a wagon. The Dutchbat sold
Page 97 and 98:
228. Only one Dutchbat officer was
Page 99 and 100:
‘UNMO source about 1,000 men take
Page 101 and 102:
night-time. I did not dare to leave
Page 103 and 104:
239. Plaintiff Hotič states (see E
Page 105 and 106:
People had no food or water, nor we
Page 107 and 108:
During all of this the Dutch soldie
Page 109 and 110:
group and they were raped. I was ve
Page 111 and 112:
four or five Dutchbat soldiers were
Page 113 and 114:
shocked by what he had evidently se
Page 115 and 116:
follows:‘An alternative position
Page 117 and 118:
‘We were deported to Tuzla later
Page 119 and 120:
I arrived at the barrier shortly th
Page 121 and 122:
encountered objections from the Dut
Page 123 and 124:
277. Plaintiff Hasanović was born
Page 125 and 126:
Subašić282. Plaintiff Subašić w
Page 127 and 128:
IILegal characterisationIntroductio
Page 129 and 130:
the United Nations, Advisory opinio
Page 131 and 132:
302. The UN and the State of the Ne
Page 133 and 134:
acting arise, respectively). In add
Page 135 and 136:
of the Safe Area and was not immedi
Page 137 and 138:
weapons of the VRS, or at least to
Page 139 and 140:
consequence that the VRS could depl
Page 141 and 142:
326. Instead of taking action from
Page 143 and 144:
‘(…) I had spent days lying on
Page 145 and 146:
23 July 1995 (see H. Praamsma, J. P
Page 147 and 148:
(a) (…) encouraging the progressi
Page 149 and 150:
‘Article 3 - General Principles1.
Page 151 and 152:
control of UNPROFOR from the moment
Page 153 and 154:
‘The presumption can be rebutted
Page 155 and 156:
ecame entwined. In his view, it was
Page 157 and 158:
Conventions obliges the Contracting
Page 159 and 160:
Article 8 of the ILC Articles for I
Page 161 and 162:
- secondly, it was evident that the
Page 163 and 164:
international customary humanitaria
Page 165 and 166:
civilians, deportation and murder.
Page 167 and 168:
‘(…) confirm that Article I doe
Page 169 and 170:
also be assessed by legal criteria,
Page 171 and 172:
‘(14) UNPROFOR had participated a
Page 173 and 174:
under customary law. A duty on stat
Page 175 and 176:
and the State of the Netherlands ac
Page 177 and 178:
for International Organisations com
Page 179 and 180:
‘(c) Provide those who claim to b
Page 181 and 182:
the State of the Netherlands must p
Page 183 and 184:
of the Netherlands. The UN and the
Page 185 and 186:
‘militairement avait mal conduit.
Page 187 and 188:
UN but also to the purposes that ar
Page 189 and 190:
possible immunity on the part of th
Page 191 and 192:
‘The United Nations shall make pr
Page 193 and 194:
‘In spite of this provision of th
Page 195:
THEREFORE:If it pleases the Court t
show all

Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?