Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

obstructed or prevented by the Bosnian Serbs, the inadequate equipment and instructionof Dutchbat, the surrender of the observation posts, the non-defence of the Safe Areaand the blocking positions, the failure to enforce the mini Safe Area, and the nondeploymentof air power. These breaches have been extensively addressed in theframework of the discussion of the facts and the responsibility at civil law, to which forthe sake of brevity Plaintiff here further refers.380. With respect to the non-deployment, or at least insufficient, deployment of air powerPlaintiff notes the following. According to the text of UN resolutions 836 and 844, aswell as the Explanatory Memorandum to them in the Report of the Secretary-General ofthe UN, air support could be deployed in enforcement of the mandate of UNPROFOR,where that was required.381. That appeared also from number 480 of the UN Report, where it was concluded that therequirements for air support since 6 July 1995 were met:‘Even in the most restrictive interpretation of the mandate the use of close air supportagainst attacking Serb targets was clearly warranted. The Serbs were firing directly atDutchbat observation posts with tank rounds as early as five days before the enclavefell.’382. Even Karremans confirmed the following in his witness statement before the FrenchParliamentary Commission of Enquiry about the six days before the fall of Srebrenica(in English translation):‘I appear before you as the Commander of Dutchbat III, who for six days requested airsupport on several occasions and did so emphatically. I justified these requests on thefollowing grounds:- Our observation posts were frequently attacked. In other words, the lives of a numberof my soldiers were endangered;© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com160