Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Information on the Srebenica Related Trials, Thanks Owen
"The judgment in the civil court cases brought by Srebrenica survivors against the Dutch state is due to be delivered in the District Court in The Hague on Wednesday morning, September 10.
Hasan Nuhanovic and the family of Rizo Mustafic are seeking to hold the Dutch state accountable for handing their relatives over to be murdered by the troops of Ratko Mladic at Srebrenica in July 1995.
The Dutch UN forces had a Security Council mandate to protect the civilian population of Srebrenica. Instead they ordered 5-6000 refugees to leave the protection of their base at Potocari at a time when refugees were already being killed and raped only metres from the base entrance.
This is a potentially ground-breaking case as far as the responsibility of the international community for civilians under its protection is concerned.
For further information see attached press release or contact Liesbeth Zegveld, who is representing the relatives, at:
<LZegveld@bfkw.nl>"
Hasan Nuhanovic and the family of Rizo Mustafic are seeking to hold the Dutch state accountable for handing their relatives over to be murdered by the troops of Ratko Mladic at Srebrenica in July 1995.
The Dutch UN forces had a Security Council mandate to protect the civilian population of Srebrenica. Instead they ordered 5-6000 refugees to leave the protection of their base at Potocari at a time when refugees were already being killed and raped only metres from the base entrance.
This is a potentially ground-breaking case as far as the responsibility of the international community for civilians under its protection is concerned.
For further information see attached press release or contact Liesbeth Zegveld, who is representing the relatives, at:
<LZegveld@bfkw.nl>"
# posted by Katja R. @ 3:04 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I'm afraid the court judgment was pretty negative. Of course next will come the appeal but the hearing was a very upsetting experience for the Mustafics and Hasan Nuhanovic - their claims were dismissed on all counts.
Basically the court said that the claims were inadmissible in the first place because Dutchbat was operating under a UN mandate (and of course back in July the same court ruled that the Mothers of Srebrenica couldn't pursue a claim against the UN because of UN immunity).
The court appears to have disregarded the claim that Dutch officers in the UNPROFOR command regularly sidestepped the UNPROFOR command and consulted with the national government.
From what I've picked up, the court also appears to be asserting that the state cannot be held responsible for wrongful acts committed by the Dutch military and isn't liable for anything wrong done by individuals acting on its behalf (the heads of the armed forces) or members of the government.
In the Pinochet case the UK Law Lords (highest instance of appeal) considered that immunity couldn't be claimed when what was being done was not a legitimate act for the person concerned to be performing.
I'm no legal expert, m'lud, but in my eyes handing over civilians from Srebrenica under your protection to people you know are very likely to kill them is not a legitimate act if you're operating under a mandate to protect civilians from Srebrenica.
I hope this crass judgment won't stand at appeal. Otherwise what meaning is there in any peace-keeping mandate?
Post a Comment
Basically the court said that the claims were inadmissible in the first place because Dutchbat was operating under a UN mandate (and of course back in July the same court ruled that the Mothers of Srebrenica couldn't pursue a claim against the UN because of UN immunity).
The court appears to have disregarded the claim that Dutch officers in the UNPROFOR command regularly sidestepped the UNPROFOR command and consulted with the national government.
From what I've picked up, the court also appears to be asserting that the state cannot be held responsible for wrongful acts committed by the Dutch military and isn't liable for anything wrong done by individuals acting on its behalf (the heads of the armed forces) or members of the government.
In the Pinochet case the UK Law Lords (highest instance of appeal) considered that immunity couldn't be claimed when what was being done was not a legitimate act for the person concerned to be performing.
I'm no legal expert, m'lud, but in my eyes handing over civilians from Srebrenica under your protection to people you know are very likely to kill them is not a legitimate act if you're operating under a mandate to protect civilians from Srebrenica.
I hope this crass judgment won't stand at appeal. Otherwise what meaning is there in any peace-keeping mandate?
# posted by 
: 2:02 AM
: 2:02 AM << Home
