Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef
Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef Writ of summons - Van Diepen Van der Kroef
despite the fact that the NIOD deemed the statements plausible. Moreover, the NIODReport is generally so comprehensive that it is incomprehensible when seen in that lightthat this essential part remains so under-exposed and all the more so as terrible crimeswere committed under the eyes of Dutchbat. The NIOD Report (see page 2658) comesunstuck with the statement:‘The amount of qualitative source material about massacres in and around Potocari isso great in volume and provides so much detail that even the most conservativeinterpretation of the available information will show up the striking difference with thestatements from the Dutchbat side.’203. In the Summary of the NIOD Report it is postulated on page 332 that a reconstruction ofwhat the Bosnian Serbs did to the refugees on 12 and 13 July 1995 would be extremelycomplicated. It was established that the statements of the refugees and of Dutchbatsoldiers were very divergent. The Serbs began from 12 July 1995 with an inspection,with the assent of the Dutchbat soldiers. Men were taken out of the groups of refugees,allegedly to be questioned. Afterwards they were not seen again. It is probable that theywere murdered. Girls and women were also taken out of the group and removed to anearby house, where many would have been raped. Dutchbat soldiers stated that theywere woken at night by screaming. Many refugees confirmed later that they receivedreassuring words and guarantees from Dutchbat soldiers about their safety (page 332 ofthe Summary of the NIOD Report). The statements that have been put in the proceedingsas Exhibits 1 through 11 tell the facts as the State of the Netherlands and the UNevidently do not and did not wish them to be revealed. Plaintiff will discuss thosestatements below.204. Dreadful scenes were played out around the compound between 11 and 13 July 1995.Men, women, and children were tortured, raped and murdered, sometimes under the eyesof Dutchbat soldiers. See point 150 of the Decision of the Yugoslavia Tribunal at firstinstance against R. Krstic:© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com90
‘On 12 and 13 July 1995, upon the arrival of Serb forces in Potocari, the BosnianMuslim refugees taking shelter in and around the compound were subjected to a terrorcampaign comprised of threats, looting, and burning of nearby houses, beatings, rapes,and murders.’205. The VRS asked on 12 July 1995 to inspect the compound, which was permitted byDutchbat without condition. The Dutchbat soldiers piled up their weapons ‘in order toavoid provocation’ (see page 327 of the Summary of the NIOD Report). By so doing notonly did they act contrary to the express orders from Sarajevo but the umpteenthpossibility to protect the mortally afraid refugees disappeared.Establishment of the mini Safe Area206. In the light of the pressing situation on the compound Dutchbat Commander Karremansrequested and was granted a meeting with VRS General Mladic. Karremans allowedhimself to be intimidated in that meeting (see pages 324/325 of the Summary of theNIOD Report). Karremans stated that the air strikes had been requested purely from selfdefenceand thanked Mladic for the good treatment of the Dutchbat soldiers who wereheld hostage. Then Karremans immortalized himself in a photograph with Mladic, eachof them with a glass in hand. Karremans discussed the evacuation of the refugees duringa subsequent meeting with Mladic and representatives of the Bosniacs. Then, in thepresence of the representatives of the refugees, Karremans stated that the compound andits vicinity were declared to be a mini Safe Area (see page 325 of the Summary of theNIOD Report). It transpired that the refugees could not trust even that promise.Karremans was subsequently asked, in the context of a witness statement before theYugoslavia Tribunal, why he had not raised the issue of human rights violations at hismeeting with Mladic. Karremans answered – to the amazement of the judges of theTribunal and the media – that in all honesty he had not thought about it (see page 2733of the NIOD Report):‘To be frank, I have not thought about the idea of asking him what happened to therefugees.’© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com91
- 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: Other points concerned forced evict
- 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
despite the fact that the NIOD deemed the statements plausible. Moreover, the NIODReport is generally so comprehensive that it is incomprehensible when seen in that lightthat this essential part remains so un<strong>der</strong>-exposed and all the more so as terrible crimeswere committed un<strong>der</strong> the eyes <strong>of</strong> Dutchbat. The NIOD Report (see page 2658) comesunstuck with the statement:‘The amount <strong>of</strong> qualitative source material about massacres in and around Potocari isso great in volume and provides so much detail that even the most conservativeinterpretation <strong>of</strong> the available information will show up the striking difference with thestatements from the Dutchbat side.’203. In the Summary <strong>of</strong> the NIOD Report it is postulated on page 332 that a reconstruction <strong>of</strong>what the Bosnian Serbs did to the refugees on 12 and 13 July 1995 would be extremelycomplicated. It was established that the statements <strong>of</strong> the refugees and <strong>of</strong> Dutchbatsoldiers were very divergent. The Serbs began from 12 July 1995 with an inspection,with the assent <strong>of</strong> the Dutchbat soldiers. Men were taken out <strong>of</strong> the groups <strong>of</strong> refugees,allegedly to be questioned. Afterwards they were not seen again. It is probable that theywere mur<strong>der</strong>ed. Girls and women were also taken out <strong>of</strong> the group and removed to anearby house, where many would have been raped. Dutchbat soldiers stated that theywere woken at night by screaming. Many refugees confirmed later that they receivedreassuring words and guarantees from Dutchbat soldiers about their safety (page 332 <strong>of</strong>the Summary <strong>of</strong> the NIOD Report). The statements that have been put in the proceedingsas Exhibits 1 through 11 tell the facts as the State <strong>of</strong> the Netherlands and the UNevidently do not and did not wish them to be revealed. Plaintiff will discuss thosestatements below.204. Dreadful scenes were played out around the compound between 11 and 13 July 1995.Men, women, and children were tortured, raped and mur<strong>der</strong>ed, sometimes un<strong>der</strong> the eyes<strong>of</strong> Dutchbat soldiers. See point 150 <strong>of</strong> the Decision <strong>of</strong> the Yugoslavia Tribunal at firstinstance against R. Krstic:© <strong>Van</strong> <strong>Diepen</strong> <strong>Van</strong> <strong>der</strong> <strong>Kroef</strong> Advocaten 2007www.vandiepen.com90
Change language