Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef

IV Tender of evidence 446I Facts5. Plaintiff has, with respect to the facts, drawn to an important extent from the followingsources:- the Report of the Dutch Institute for War Documentation (NIOD), of 10 April 2002,entitled: ‘Srebrenica, a ‘safe’ area’ (in Dutch ‘Srebrenica, een ‘veilig’ gebied’)’.That report is referred to as the ‘NIOD Report’. At the end of 1996 NIOD (thentermed: State Institute for War Documentation (in Dutch ‘Rijksinstituut voorOorlogsdocumentatie’) was charged by the Government of the Netherlands (at thetime of the Kok-I cabinet) with compiling an inventory of the relevant factualmaterial and ordering that material. The intention was that such ordered materialwould provide the base from which, from an historical perspective in both a nationaland international context, insight would be gained into the origins and events that ledto the fall of the Srebrenica Safe Area and to the dramatic developments that followedfrom that. For the formulation of the assignment with accompanying conditions andregulations reference is made to Lower House, Assembly Year 1996-1997, 25069. Asummary of the Report has also been published and reference to that will be to ‘theSummary of the NIOD Report’. Plaintiff notes with reference to the reporting bythe NIOD that she has used the Reports as a source of facts. Plaintiff expressly doesnot endorse all the (political) choices and conclusions that the NIOD has drawn onthe base of those facts. In the view of Plaintiff, the NIOD failed to draw conclusionson a number of essential matters where that should have been done. Whereconclusions have in fact been drawn, frequently these have strikingly turned outgenerously for the UN and the State of the Netherlands, or they do not do justice tothe facts.- the Decision at first instance of 2 August 2002 given by the International CriminalTribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations ofInternational Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslaviasince 1991 (Yugoslavia Tribunal), against Radislav Krstic, and the decision on appeal© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com9