Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Code. In accordance within its constitution the Foundation promotes the interests ofsurviving relatives and has, in addition to its idealistic interest, also a financial interest inits claims given that the Foundation also has the object of offering financial help to thesurviving relatives.2. In these proceedings Plaintiff and the Foundation seek a judicial declaration that theState of the Netherlands and the UN, due to a failure to perform their undertakings andobligations, acted unlawfully with respect to Plaintiff and the murdered members of herfamily. Plaintiff (under 1 through 10) further claims an advance of EUR 25,000 perperson for the loss and injury suffered and yet to be suffered by her, as well as damagesyet to be determined by the court.3. The claims of Plaintiff and the Foundation rest upon the actions, or at least theomissions, of the State of the Netherlands and the UN, within the framework of theimplementation of, inter alia, UN resolutions 819, 824 and 836, to protect the enclave ofSrebrenica declared by the UN as a ‘Safe Area’ and the civilians who found themselvesthere against the attacks by the Bosnian Serbs. In this the following matters – in anutshell – are relevant:- the State of the Netherlands dispatched a battalion of soldiers to the Srebrenica SafeArea that proved not to be equipped, nor trained nor psychologically prepared todischarge the military duties assigned to it;- the promised humanitarian relief in the Srebrenica Safe Area failed or almostentirely failed to reach the civilian population;- despite prior knowledge that the Bosnian Serbs intended to overrun the SrebrenicaSafe Area in July 1995, the required measures were not taken by the State of theNetherlands nor by the UN;- during the attack on the Srebrenica Safe Area, which lasted six days, there appearedto be no serious willingness to stop the Bosnian-Serb attack. What is more, militarypositions were surrendered by the UN troops without resistance. As was laterestablished, the Bosnian Serbs decided to occupy the entire enclave only when theyencountered no military resistance to their attack;© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com4
- every request by the inhabitants of the Safe Area for the return of weapons, whichhad previously been impounded, so that they could defend themselves, wasresolutely dismissed by the UN troops. That refusal was repeatedly accompanied bythe undertaking that the UN troops had personally assumed the defence of the SafeArea and that the UN troops would undertake the defence;- air power was not consistently deployed or postponed. Shortly before the fall of theSafe Area the Close Air Support was obstructed by the State of the Netherlandsitself. The UN would later conclude in respect of the failure of the Close AirSupport to appear that even with the most restrictive interpretation of the mandateall the conditions for the deployment of Close Air Support had been met;- the protection of the defenceless civilian population from the Serb troops followingthe fall of the Safe Area on 11th July 1995 was neglected, despite the fact thatundertakings were given up to the last to protect it. As a result, the fact thathundreds of women were raped and murdered was not prevented and it was also notprevented that thousands of men and boys were systematically taken away, torturedand executed. Ultimately, between 8,000 and 10,000 refugees would die;- war crimes were not reported despite the fact that the Dutch troops were witness tothem. Even the detection of war crimes by military observers of the UN who werepresent in the Safe Area did not lead to the taking of any measures. Given that themajority of executions occurred in the days following the fall of the Safe Area andpersisted for weeks thereafter, it is possible that many refugees could have beensaved.4. Plaintiff wishes to raise the following matters in support before moving to theformulation of her claims:I Factspoint in writ of summons1. The war in the former Yugoslavia 62. UN resolutions 19- Introduction to the concept of Safe Area 21- Text of the UN resolutions and Commentary of the Secretary-General 22© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com5
Page 1 and 2: WRIT OF SUMMONSDISTRICT COURT, THE
Page 3: IN ORDER:on Wednesday, thetwo thous
Page 7 and 8: 8. The fate of the civilian populat
Page 9 and 10: IV Tender of evidence 446I Facts5.
Page 11 and 12: NIOD. This Report is referred to as
Page 13 and 14: 12. The Yugoslav People’s Army (o
Page 15 and 16: ‘Prior to departing, he addressed
Page 17 and 18: - UN resolution 816 (31 March 1993)
Page 19 and 20: No. 4:Decides to ensure full respec
Page 21 and 22: …Should UNPROFOR’s presence pro
Page 23 and 24: 30. To reiterate here, the question
Page 25 and 26: UN and the State of the Netherlands
Page 27 and 28: Brigade. In addition, the State of
Page 29 and 30: 43. The choice in favour of deploym
Page 31 and 32: The government parties replied to t
Page 33 and 34: population during the training as
Page 35 and 36: Potocari/Srebrenica. This chain of
Page 37 and 38: 63. As appears from the above, and
Page 39 and 40: eference to the failure to act of D
Page 41 and 42: ‘I have been directed, today 29 M
Page 43 and 44: leaders (Milosevic, Karadzic and Ml
Page 45 and 46: observation post was not carried ou
Page 47 and 48: attack on the Safe Area on 6 July 1
Page 49 and 50: single shot being fired and OP-F wa
Page 51 and 52: immediate and robust reaction Nicol
Page 53 and 54: know what Dutchbat itself would do
Page 55 and 56:
that the enclave was continuously e
Page 57 and 58:
‘You are to use all means at your
Page 59 and 60:
Commander therefore gave the order
Page 61 and 62:
he proposed to have Karremens arres
Page 63 and 64:
Brantz, to establish that there was
Page 65 and 66:
officers and the State of the Nethe
Page 67 and 68:
had any purpose to go ahead with th
Page 69 and 70:
Voorhoeve (see also number 307 of t
Page 71 and 72:
y VRS soldiers in Dutch uniform and
Page 73 and 74:
population: medical matters (Dutchb
Page 75 and 76:
OP-N161. The capture of OP-N is des
Page 77 and 78:
Brantz (Tuzla)↕Karremans, Franken
Page 79 and 80:
‘The first line of resistance to
Page 81 and 82:
180. Plaintiff Mujić states (see E
Page 83 and 84:
The flight to the UN compound189. D
Page 85 and 86:
193. It is incomprehensible that Du
Page 87 and 88:
soldiers let that be known when the
Page 89 and 90:
Other points concerned forced evict
Page 91 and 92:
‘On 12 and 13 July 1995, upon the
Page 93 and 94:
statements put in the proceedings a
Page 95 and 96:
lying on a wagon. The Dutchbat sold
Page 97 and 98:
228. Only one Dutchbat officer was
Page 99 and 100:
‘UNMO source about 1,000 men take
Page 101 and 102:
night-time. I did not dare to leave
Page 103 and 104:
239. Plaintiff Hotič states (see E
Page 105 and 106:
People had no food or water, nor we
Page 107 and 108:
During all of this the Dutch soldie
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 and 160:
Article 8 of the ILC Articles for I
Page 161 and 162:
- secondly, it was evident that the
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
show all

Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?