Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef
Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef
267. The world reacted with shock to the fall of the Safe Area. Plans were rapidly made toretake the Safe Area. Those plans were frustrated, however, by the State of theNetherlands and Dutch advisors. This is explained below.268. When the communication from Dutch Minister Van Mierlo came through on 11 July1995 that the enclave was on the point of falling, and that NATO could no longer deployaircraft, ‘le Président de la Republique a littéralement explosé’, according to an advisorof French President Chirac who was present. German Chancellor Kohl and Chirac wereof the opinion that the Safe Area must be restored. General Quesnot, President Chirac’smilitary advisor, proposed a plan to the French President for the retaking of the SafeArea with paratroops. General Quesnot would lead the force. He said: ‘Give me tworegiments, I jump, and I will retake Srebrenica.’ That this statement was not an emptyboast is shown by the fact that 56 French soldiers lost their lives during fighting in theframework of the UNPROFOR mission in Bosnia. When the Dutch Cabinet learned ofthe French-German plans to retake the Safe Area, it assessed them as scarcely credible.The Dutch Chief of the Defence Staff, Van den Breemen, considered the retaking of theSafe Area to be irresponsible as long as there were still Dutch soldiers in the Safe Areabecause they would be in danger (see page 2411 et seq. of the NIOD Report and pages294 and 295 of the Summary of the NIOD Report). This state of affairs shows theconstant pattern among Dutch politicians and army command totally to subordinate theimportance of protecting the refugees to that of the perceived Dutch interest.269. President Chirac and Minister Hervé de Charette, during private talks, at once expressedtheir amazement at the speed with which Dutchbat had surrendered the Safe Area. Hervéde Charette said on French television on 13 July 1995 that the Dutch blue helmets hadoffered too little resistance, and apart from that were accessories to ethnic cleansing bygiving assistance to the deportation of the civilian population (see page 289 of theSummary of the NIOD Report).270. The wish that the Srebrenica Safe Area should be restored and if necessary retaken aroseinternationally after the fall. That was expressed in the draft of UN resolution 1004 withthe addition, ‘to use all resources available’ in the restoration of the Safe Area. This© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com120
encountered objections from the Dutch government because this hard line against theBosnian Serbs could entail risks for the Dutch hostages. The Netherlands preferred useof the formulation, ‘to use his best efforts’. For this reason The Netherlands withdrew asco-proposer of the draft resolution. The draft resolution was, nevertheless, unanimouslyaccepted on 12 July 1995. Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali then instituted aninvestigation into the military means that would be required to achieve a restoration ofthe Safe Area by force. His military advisor, the Dutch Van Kappen, judged a plan toretake Srebrenica as unmanageable in military and political terms (see pages 296 and297 of the Summary of the NIOD Report). In the end nothing was done.271. After the women were deported from the Safe Area by bus to Tuzla, after the men andboys were taken away and murdered, Dutchbat left the area together with the freedhostages on 21 July 1995.272. In the week preceding their departure, Dutchbat neglected every attempt either throughan appeal for information or a form of debriefing to reveal information on possible veryserious violations of human rights. Both Franken and Karremans subsequently admittedthat they were amazed that they had not thought of doing so. Nor was anything done inthat respect higher up in the hierarchy of UNPROFOR (see page 2776 of the NIODReport).I.15. Individual circumstances of each Plaintiff273. The individual circumstances of each Plaintiff will be gone into in more detail below.Plaintiff refers for completeness to the statements that have been appended to this writof summons as Exhibits 1 through 10. Each Plaintiff will confine herself essentially tothe family members she lost. Plaintiff was driven from hearth and home with the fall ofthe Safe Area and thereby lost all her personal possessions.Fejzić274. Plaintiff Fejzić was born in 1956, in the Municipality of Srebrenica. She lived before thewar in Srebrenica with her husband, Ŝaban (born in 1952), who worked as a manager atthe mine near Srebrenica. Fejzić and her husband had a son, Rijad, who was born in© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com121
- 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: I arrived at the barrier shortly th
- 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,
267. The world reacted with shock to the fall <strong>of</strong> the Safe Area. Plans were rapidly made toretake the Safe Area. Those plans were frustrated, however, by the State <strong>of</strong> theNetherlands and Dutch advisors. This is explained below.268. When the communication from Dutch Minister <strong>Van</strong> Mierlo came through on 11 July1995 that the enclave was on the point <strong>of</strong> falling, and that NATO could no longer deployaircraft, ‘le Président de la Republique a littéralement explosé’, according to an advisor<strong>of</strong> French President Chirac who was present. German Chancellor Kohl and Chirac were<strong>of</strong> the opinion that the Safe Area must be restored. General Quesnot, President Chirac’smilitary advisor, proposed a plan to the French President for the retaking <strong>of</strong> the SafeArea with paratroops. General Quesnot would lead the force. He said: ‘Give me tworegiments, I jump, and I will retake Srebrenica.’ That this statement was not an emptyboast is shown by the fact that 56 French soldiers lost their lives during fighting in theframework <strong>of</strong> the UNPROFOR mission in Bosnia. When the Dutch Cabinet learned <strong>of</strong>the French-German plans to retake the Safe Area, it assessed them as scarcely credible.The Dutch Chief <strong>of</strong> the Defence Staff, <strong>Van</strong> den Breemen, consi<strong>der</strong>ed the retaking <strong>of</strong> theSafe Area to be irresponsible as long as there were still Dutch soldiers in the Safe Areabecause they would be in danger (see page 2411 et seq. <strong>of</strong> the NIOD Report and pages294 and 295 <strong>of</strong> the Summary <strong>of</strong> the NIOD Report). This state <strong>of</strong> affairs shows theconstant pattern among Dutch politicians and army command totally to subordinate theimportance <strong>of</strong> protecting the refugees to that <strong>of</strong> the perceived Dutch interest.269. President Chirac and Minister Hervé de Charette, during private talks, at once expressedtheir amazement at the speed with which Dutchbat had surren<strong>der</strong>ed the Safe Area. Hervéde Charette said on French television on 13 July 1995 that the Dutch blue helmets had<strong>of</strong>fered too little resistance, and apart from that were accessories to ethnic cleansing bygiving assistance to the deportation <strong>of</strong> the civilian population (see page 289 <strong>of</strong> theSummary <strong>of</strong> the NIOD Report).270. The wish that the Srebrenica Safe Area should be restored and if necessary retaken aroseinternationally after the fall. That was expressed in the draft <strong>of</strong> UN resolution 1004 withthe addition, ‘to use all resources available’ in the restoration <strong>of</strong> the Safe Area. This© <strong>Van</strong> <strong>Diepen</strong> <strong>Van</strong> <strong>der</strong> <strong>Kroef</strong> Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com120
Change language