Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef
Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef
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
- every request by the inhabitants <strong>of</strong> the Safe Area for the return <strong>of</strong> weapons, whichhad previously been impounded, so that they could defend themselves, wasresolutely dismissed by the UN troops. That refusal was repeatedly accompanied bythe un<strong>der</strong>taking that the UN troops had personally assumed the defence <strong>of</strong> the SafeArea and that the UN troops would un<strong>der</strong>take the defence;- air power was not consistently deployed or postponed. Shortly before the fall <strong>of</strong> theSafe Area the Close Air Support was obstructed by the State <strong>of</strong> the Netherlandsitself. The UN would later conclude in respect <strong>of</strong> the failure <strong>of</strong> the Close AirSupport to appear that even with the most restrictive interpretation <strong>of</strong> the mandateall the conditions for the deployment <strong>of</strong> Close Air Support had been met;- the protection <strong>of</strong> the defenceless civilian population from the Serb troops followingthe fall <strong>of</strong> the Safe Area on 11th July 1995 was neglected, despite the fact thatun<strong>der</strong>takings were given up to the last to protect it. As a result, the fact thathundreds <strong>of</strong> women were raped and mur<strong>der</strong>ed was not prevented and it was also notprevented that thousands <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> war crimes by military observers <strong>of</strong> the UN who werepresent in the Safe Area did not lead to the taking <strong>of</strong> any measures. Given that themajority <strong>of</strong> executions occurred in the days following the fall <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> her claims:I Factspoint in writ <strong>of</strong> <strong>summons</strong>1. The war in the former Yugoslavia 62. UN resolutions 19- Introduction to the concept <strong>of</strong> Safe Area 21- Text <strong>of</strong> the UN resolutions and Commentary <strong>of</strong> the Secretary-General 22© <strong>Van</strong> <strong>Diepen</strong> <strong>Van</strong> <strong>der</strong> <strong>Kroef</strong> Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com5
Change language