Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

“hunting season [is] in full swing … it is not only men supposedly belonging to theBosnian Government who are targeted … women, including pregnant ones, childrenand old people aren’t spared. Some are shot and wounded, others have had their earscut off and some women have been raped.’Despite this these war crimes were not reported, as also appears from number 390 of theUN Report:‘While many of these reports emerge from refugees, they are widespread andconsistent, and have been given credence by a variety of international observers,including UNHCR. We have however, received nothing on the subject fromUNPROFOR.’332. It is unlawful towards Plaintiff and her murdered family (who were entitled to trust thatthey would be protected) that Dutchbat did not report the war crimes that it was witnessto from 6 July 1995, as well as the many indicators of such crimes. It was aresponsibility to do so (see number 474 of the UN Report):‘It is harder to explain why the Dutchbat personnel did not report more fully the scenesthat were unfolding around them following the enclave’s fall. Although they did notwitness mass killing, they were aware of some sinister indications. It is possible that ifthe members of the battalion had immediately reported in detail those sinisterindications to the United Nations chain of command, the international community mighthave been compelled to respond more robustly and more quickly, and that some livesmight have been saved. This failure of intelligence-sharing was also not limited to thefall of Srebrenica, but an endemic weakness throughout the conflict, both within thepeacekeeping mission, and between the mission and Member States.’333. An explanation for the fact that war crimes were not reported and later were also notmentioned by Dutchbat soldiers, is possibly to be found in the statement of an internalDutchbat spokesperson of a conversation that he had with the Dutch General Couzy on© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com144