Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef
Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef 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
- secondly, it was evident that the Safe Area was being attacked by Bosnian Serbs, andthat there had been a great number of victims as a consequence of those attacks. Therewere many dead and injured civilians among the population who had already sufferedmuch; it often rained bullets in the town, with the inevitable consequences.I had to explain to the people, to the men and women, why my battalion could notguarantee their safety.’The refusals to provide air support, first on 3 June 1995 and then from 6 through 10July 1995, as well as the calling-off of the air support on 11 July 1995, are a breach ofthe UN mandate.383. The surrender of the blocking positions also constitutes a breach of the mandate, in theview of Plaintiff. Dutchbat received several orders to defend the Safe Area inenforcement of the mandate. Dutchbat received on 9 July 1995 in enforcement of themandate the order ‘to assume blocking positions with all means available’ (see,UN Report number 273 and further). Dutchbat received the order to supply the soldiersat the blocking positions with as many anti-tank weapons as possible. The blockingpositions were, however, withdrawn from almost immediately without there being anyquestion of defending them.384. Dutchbat received an order for defence and protection of the civil population on 11 July1995 from the headquarters in Sarajevo (see, UN Report, number 312):‘Take all reasonable measures to protect refugees and civilians in your care’,and,‘Continue with all possible means to defend your forces and installations from attack.This is to include the use of close air support if necessary.’© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com161
- 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: Article 8 of the ILC Articles for I
- 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
- secondly, it was evident that the Safe Area was being attacked by Bosnian Serbs, andthat there had been a great number <strong>of</strong> victims as a consequence <strong>of</strong> those attacks. Therewere many dead and injured civilians among the population who had already sufferedmuch; it <strong>of</strong>ten rained bullets in the town, with the inevitable consequences.I had to explain to the people, to the men and women, why my battalion could notguarantee their safety.’The refusals to provide air support, first on 3 June 1995 and then from 6 through 10July 1995, as well as the calling-<strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> the air support on 11 July 1995, are a breach <strong>of</strong>the UN mandate.383. The surren<strong>der</strong> <strong>of</strong> the blocking positions also constitutes a breach <strong>of</strong> the mandate, in theview <strong>of</strong> Plaintiff. Dutchbat received several or<strong>der</strong>s to defend the Safe Area inenforcement <strong>of</strong> the mandate. Dutchbat received on 9 July 1995 in enforcement <strong>of</strong> themandate the or<strong>der</strong> ‘to assume blocking positions with all means available’ (see,UN Report number 273 and further). Dutchbat received the or<strong>der</strong> to supply the soldiersat the blocking positions with as many anti-tank weapons as possible. The blockingpositions were, however, withdrawn from almost immediately without there being anyquestion <strong>of</strong> defending them.384. Dutchbat received an or<strong>der</strong> for defence and protection <strong>of</strong> the civil population on 11 July1995 from the headquarters in Sarajevo (see, UN Report, number 312):‘Take all reasonable measures to protect refugees and civilians in your care’,and,‘Continue with all possible means to defend your forces and installations from attack.This is to include the use <strong>of</strong> close air support if necessary.’© <strong>Van</strong> <strong>Diepen</strong> <strong>Van</strong> <strong>der</strong> <strong>Kroef</strong> Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com161
Change language