Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

follows. The military staff of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) ofthe UN proposes a draft of the rules of engagement, based on the instructions on the useof force. This draft is then submitted to the political department of the DPKO, whichincorporates any necessary additions and/or amendments into the draft. The rules ofengagement must be examined for compatibility with international (humanitarian) law.The draft of the rules of engagement is then submitted to the Force Commander (themilitary commander-in-chief of the mission), who must judge whether the proposedrules of engagement are workable. The draft thus achieved is then returned to the legaldepartment of the DPKO. If there are no comments or remarks and the rules ofengagement can definitively be established, they are submitted to the Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations for signature. Upon receiving that signature the rules ofengagement are formally binding and UN troops must act in conformity with them.34. The NIOD (in contrast to Plaintiff) was given access to the rules of engagement, with theresult that the arguments of Plaintiff are perforce based on what the NIOD states thereonin its Report. On the rules of engagement the NIOD Report states on page 2360:‘The Rules of engagement, including rules for when UNPROFOR was allowed to openfire, were intended to set limits to the use of force and to indicate in which situationsforce could be used.’35. Plaintiff again adopts the principal position that these rules were drawn up by the UN.Plaintiff had no influence on the creation, the content and the execution of those rules.Plaintiff has been placed in a difficult situation in respect of any discussion of the rulesof engagement because they have been kept secret. Taking everything into accountshould lead in the view of Plaintiff to a reversal of the burden of proof. The UN and theState of the Netherlands should make the content of the rules of engagement public anddemonstrate that these rules were sufficient, or at least that these rules were correctlyapplied. For the present it must be concluded – given the fact that there was no questionof any military action on the part of the UN and the State of the Netherlands despite theobstruction of the humanitarian convoys, the capture of the observation posts, the fall ofthe enclave and the murder of 8,000 to 10,000 refugees – that the rules drawn up by the© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com24