Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

‘The care taken in preparing the report, its comprehensive sources and theindependence of those responsible for its preparation all lend considerable authority toit. As will appear later in this Judgment, the Court has gained substantial assistancefrom this report.’316. A number of conclusions were drawn in the UN Report that are of significance for thepresent case. Those conclusions relate, among others, to the weapons embargo, thedemilitarisation, the refusal to return weapons, the consequences of the failure ofDutchbat to offer resistance, the air strikes, and the failure of Dutchbat to report warcrimes. The UN recognises that it made mistakes (see point 5 of the UN Report):‘(…) I am fully cognizant of the mandate entrusted to the United Nations and only toopainfully aware of the Organization’s failures in implementing that mandate.’317. The population of Srebrenica had the choice itself to fight, to flee or to trust in theagreements made with the UN and the State of the Netherlands, or at least to trust inDutchbat. Many refugees chose for that last option and that trust was grievously shamed.In addition, many refugees were in fact left with no other possibilities by Dutchbat thanto trust in the protection of Dutchbat. As was shown above, Dutchbat maintained orderamong the refugees in and around the UN compound, seized the last of the weapons andeven took part in the separation of the men or boys from the women. As was shownabove, Dutchbat never at any time raised the alarm, preferring to preserve some form oforder and to protect its own position at all costs. The exercise of authority over therefugees entailed an enormous responsibility for the fate of those refugees. It is in partthe neglect of that responsibility for which Plaintiff is presently suing the UN and theState of the Netherlands. The failure to fulfil promises made in respect of the safety (andthe unlawful conduct to be discussed below), must be viewed against the fact that theUN and Dutchbat actively disarmed the Safe Area (in which no Bosnian Serbs anylonger lived). As was shown above, repeated requests for the release of surrenderedand/or seized (heavy) weapons were constantly refused. As Dutchbat and the UN had amonopoly of force in the Safe Area, the responsibility for the promised protectionweighed all the greater. The UN and Dutchbat had the possibility to destroy the (heavy)© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com136