Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

that the enclave was continuously exposed to bombardment despite the fact thatSrebrenica had been declared a Safe Area and was demilitarised. In a letter to theSecurity Council the Bosnian representative to the UN pointed out that the VRSoffensive could only be directed against the civilian population and UNPROFOR andnot against the ABiH, because the ABiH had been disarmed already in May 1993. TheUN and the NATO had consequently assumed responsibility for the defence ofSrebrenica (see page 2148 of the NIOD Report). This position on the part of the Bosnianrepresentative was also in accordance with what the ABiH and the civilians were told bythe UN and Dutchbat when they repeatedly requested the return of their seized weapons.110. The VRS advance progressed very successfully for the Bosnian Serbs. The NIODconcluded in its Report on page 2150 that the decision was taken in the evening of 9 July1995 no longer to confine the attack to the southern sector of the enclave but to extend itand to occupy the whole Safe Area.111. The UN Report concluded with respect to that under point 264:‘Only after having advanced with unexpected ease, did the Serbs decide to overrun theentire enclave.’Plaintiff refers further to the Report of the French Parliament (Part I, pages 41 and 42),in which a comparable conclusion is drawn:‘(…) l’absence the réaction des forces des Nation unies pousse les Serbes à poursuivreleur offensive.(…) et que c’est l’absence the réaction the la communauté internationale a cette date –et notamment l’absence the frappes aériennes – qui explique la décision prise le 9 theprendre l’enclave.’[Lawyer’s translation:© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com55