CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 juin 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s85E86119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:16pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sDF03491C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:24.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC155006A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sEF26C930 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s60956F2B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:60pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s95F1DE7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21338552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s677DA8A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF0D62E79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sB3E56D84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s20AFED81 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s51BE140A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sD2CEF84A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s197FB613 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sC273AADF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9FA8FCEA { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s260B30F2 { width:16.02pt; display:inline-block } .s908347EA { width:175.61pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .sB3AB582E { font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 65542/12 STICHTING MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA AND OTHERS against the Netherlands Table of Contents THE FACTS A.     Background to the case 1.     The breakup of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia 2.     The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.     The Srebrenica massacre 4.     Reports relating to the Srebrenica massacre (a)     The report of the Secretary General of the United Nations (b)     The report of the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies (c)     The French parliamentary enquiry (d)     The Netherlands parliamentary enquiry (e)     The report of the Republika Srpska Government “Commission for Investigation of the Events in and around Srebrenica between 10 th and 19 th July 1995” 5.     Decisions and judgments relating to the Srebrenica massacre (a)     The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (b)     The Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina (c)     The International Court of Justice B.     The domestic proceedings 1.     Initiation of the main proceedings 2.     The incident of procedure (a)     Arguments before the Regional Court (b)     The judgment of the Regional Court (c)     Arguments before the Court of Appeal (d)     The judgment of the Court of Appeal (e)     Arguments before the Supreme Court i.     The applicants’ appeal on points of law α.     The summons β.     The explanatory memorandum ii.     The advisory opinion (f)     The judgment of the Supreme Court 3.     Resumption of the main proceedings C.     Relevant domestic law 1.     The Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands 2.     The Act containing General Provisions on the Legislation of the Kingdom 3.     The Code of Civil Procedure 4.     The Judiciary (Organisation) Act 5.     The Bailiffs Act 2001 6.     Relevant domestic case-law (a)     The Udruženje Građana “Žene Srebrenice” case (b)     The Mustafić and Nuhanović cases COMPLAINTS THE LAW A.     Standing of the applicant Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica B.     Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention 1.     Applicability of Article 6 2.     The immunity of the United Nations (a)     The applicants’ submissions (b)     The Court’s assessment i.     Scope of the case before the Court ii.     Applicable principles iii.     Application of the above principles α.     The nature of the immunity enjoyed by the United Nations β.     The nature of the applicants’ claim γ.     The absence of any alternative jurisdiction δ.     Link with the claim against the Netherlands State ε.     Conclusion 3.     The Supreme Court’s refusal to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union C.     Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention D.     The Court’s decision The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11   June   2013 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Ján Šikuta,   Luis López Guerra,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Johannes Silvis, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 October 2012 (received at the Registry on 11   October   2012), Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to grant anonymity to two applicants under Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica is a foundation ( stichting ) under Netherlands law. It was created with a view to taking proceedings on behalf of the relatives of persons killed in and around Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the course of the events of July 1995 described below. 2.     The other applicants are individual surviving relatives of persons killed. They also state that they are victims in their own right of violations of their human rights that occurred in the course of the events of July 1995. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 3.     The applicants were represented by Mr A. Hagedorn, Mr   M.R.   Gerritsen and Mr J. Staab, lawyers practising in Amsterdam. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants and as apparent from public documents, may be summarised as follows. A.     Background to the case 1.     The break-up of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia 5.     The Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) was made up of six republics: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia. Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence from the SFRY on 25 June 1991 following referenda held earlier. Thereupon the Presidency of the SFRY ordered the JNA ( Jugoslovenska Narodna Armija/Југословенска народна армија , or Yugoslav People’s Army) into action with a view to reasserting the control of the federal government. 6.     Other component republics of the SFRY followed Slovenia and Croatia in declaring independence. Eventually only Serbia and Montenegro were left to constitute the SFRY’s successor state, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). Hostilities ensued, largely along ethnic lines, as groups who were ethnic minorities within particular republics and whose members felt difficulty identifying with the emerging independent States sought to unite the territory they inhabited with that of republics with which they perceived an ethnic bond. 7.     By Resolution 743 (1992) of 21 February 1992, the Security Council of the United Nations set up a United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) intended to be “an interim arrangement to create the conditions of peace and security required for the negotiation of an overall settlement of the Yugoslav crisis”. Although UNPROFOR’s mandate was originally for twelve months, it was extended; UNPROFOR (later renamed UNPF, the name UNPROFOR coming to refer only to the operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina) continued in operation until late December 1995. Troop-contributing nations included the Netherlands. 2.     The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina 8.     Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence on 6 March 1992 as the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thereupon war broke out, the warring factions being defined largely according to the country’s pre ‑ existing ethnic divisions. The main belligerent forces were the ARBH (Armija Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, or Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, mostly made up of Bosniacs [1] and loyal to the central authorities of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina), the HVO ( Hrvatsko vijeće obrane , or Croatian Defence Council, mostly made up of Croats [2] ) and the VRS ( Vojska Republike Srpske/Војска Републике Српске , or Army of the Republika Srpska, also called the Bosnian Serb Army, mostly made up of Serbs [3] ). 9.     It would appear that more than 100,000 people were killed and more than two million people were displaced. It is estimated that almost 30,000 people went missing; in 2010, approximately one-third of them were still so listed [4] . 10.     The conflict came to an end on 14 December 1995 when the General Framework Agreement for Peace (“the Dayton Peace Agreement”, adopted in Dayton, Ohio, USA) entered into force. One of the effects of the Dayton Peace Agreement was the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina into two component Entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (Serb Republic). 3.     The Srebrenica massacre 11.     Srebrenica is a municipality in eastern Bosnia. It is delimited to the south by the river Drina which forms the border between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. To the north it adjoins the municipality of Bratunac. Its western neighbours are the municipalities of Milići and Rogatica. It is now part of the Republika Srpska. 12.     The municipality of Srebrenica is constituted of a number of towns and villages, among them the town of Srebrenica from which the municipality takes its name. Before the outbreak of the war its population was almost entirely Bosniac and Serb, Bosniacs outnumbering Serbs by more than three to one. 13.     Since it constituted an obstacle to the formation of the Republika Srpska as a continuous territorial entity as long as it remained in the hands of the central government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Srebrenica came under VRS attack as early as 1992. 14.     It appears that the central government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina refused to countenance any evacuation of Srebrenica’s civilian population, since that would amount to the acceptance of “ethnic cleansing” and facilitate the surrender of territory to the VRS. 15.     On 16 April 1993 the Security Council of the United Nations adopted, by a unanimous vote, a resolution (Resolution 819 (1993)) demanding that “all parties and others concerned treat [the eastern Bosnian town of] Srebrenica and its surroundings as a safe area which should be free from any armed attack or any other hostile act.” 16.     By July 1995 the Srebrenica “safe area” was an enclave surrounded by territory held by the VRS. It contained ARBH combatants, most of them disarmed, and civilians. The latter numbered in their tens of thousands, mostly Bosniacs; these included by then, in addition to the local residents, persons displaced from elsewhere in eastern Bosnia. There was also an UNPROFOR presence within the enclave, nominally consisting of some four hundred lightly-armed Netherlands air-mobile infantry, known as Dutchbat (from “Dutch” and “battalion”), under the command of a lieutenant colonel. In fact, however, Dutchbat was under-strength by this time, as troops returning from leave had been prevented by the VRS from re-joining their unit. 17.     On 10 July 1995 the Drina Corps of the VRS attacked the Srebrenica “safe area” with overwhelming force. The commander of the Netherlands air ‑ mobile battalion asked his United Nations superiors for air support. However, no decisive use of air power was made. The VRS overran the area and took control despite the presence of Dutchbat. 18.     On 12 July 1995 the Security Council of the United Nations adopted, by a unanimous vote, a resolution (Resolution 1004 (1995)) demanding an immediate end to the VRS offensive and the withdrawal of VRS forces from the Srebrenica safe area as well as respect for the safety of UNPROFOR personnel and restoration of their freedom of movement. 19.     In the days that followed, Bosniac men who had fallen into the hands of the VRS were separated from the women and children and killed. Others managed to evade immediate capture and attempted to escape from the enclave. Some succeeded in reaching safety but many were caught and put to death, or died en route of their wounds or were killed by landmines. It is now generally accepted as fact that upwards of 7,000, perhaps as many as 8,000 Bosniac men and boys died in this operation at the hands of the VRS and of Serb paramilitary forces. 20.     The “Srebrenica massacre”, as it has come to be known, is widely recognised as an atrocity which is unique in the history of Europe since the end of the Second World War [5] . 4.     Reports relating to the Srebrenica massacre 21.     A number of detailed reports in relation to the Srebrenica massacre have been published, of which the following should be mentioned. (a)     The report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations 22.     On 30 November 1998 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution (A/RES/53/35) in which, among other things, it requested the Secretary-General to provide a comprehensive report, including an assessment, on the events dating from the establishment of the safe area of Srebrenica on 16 April 1993 under Security Council resolution 819 (1993) of 16 April 1993, which was followed by the establishment of other safe areas, until the endorsement of the Dayton Peace Agreement by the Security Council on 15   December 1995. 23.     The Secretary-General’s report was distributed to the General Assembly on 15 November 1999. The report runs to 113 pages not including its annexes. 24.     The report summarises the various peace-making efforts (including by a “Contact Group” composed of representatives of France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States) and decision-making procedures in the United Nations Security Council, UNPF and UNPROFOR, as well as the attack and the taking of Srebrenica by the VRS and the massacre that followed. 25.     The following is taken from the final section of the report, entitled “XI. The fall of Srebrenica: an assessment”: “ E.     Role of the Security Council and Member States ... 490.     The community of nations decided to respond to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina with an arms embargo, with humanitarian aid and with the deployment of a peacekeeping force. It must be clearly stated that these measures were poor substitutes for more decisive and forceful action to prevent the unfolding horror. The arms embargo did little more than freeze in place the military balance within the former Yugoslavia. It left the Serbs in a position of overwhelming military dominance and effectively deprived the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina of its right, under the Charter of the United Nations, to self-defence. It was not necessarily a mistake to impose an arms embargo, which after all had been done when Bosnia and Herzegovina was not yet a State Member of the United Nations. Once that was done, however, there must surely have been some attendant duty to protect Bosnia and Herzegovina, after it became a Member State, from the tragedy that then befell it. Even as the Serb attacks on and strangulation of the ‘safe areas’ continued in 1993 and 1994, all widely covered by the media and, presumably, by diplomatic and intelligence reports to their respective Governments, the approach of the members of the Security Council remained largely constant. The international community still could not find the political will to confront the menace defying it. ...” and “ G.     Lessons for the future ... 501. The international community as a whole must accept its share of responsibility for allowing this tragic course of events by its prolonged refusal to use force in the early stages of the war. This responsibility is shared by the Security Council, the Contact Group and other Governments which contributed to the delay in the use of force, as well as by the United Nations Secretariat and the mission in the field. Clearly the primary and most direct responsibility lies however with the architects and implementers of the attempted genocide in Bosnia. ...” (b)     The report of the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies 26.     In November 1996 the Netherlands Government commissioned the State Institute for War Documentation ( Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie , “RIOD”) to investigate “the events before, during and after the fall of Srebrenica”. The intention was that the materials thus collated should provide “insight into the causes and events that had led to the fall of Srebrenica and the dramatic events that followed”. 27.     The report was presented on 10 April 2002 by RIOD’s successor institution, the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies (NIOD Instituut voor Oorlogs-, Holocaust- en Genocidestudies , a body born of a merger between the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation ( Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie ) and the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies ( Centrum voor Holocaust- en Genocide Studies ). In the original Dutch it runs to 3,172 pages not including appendices. An English-language version (entitled Srebrenica: Reconstruction, background, consequences and analyses of the fall of a ‘safe’ area ) exists. It is intended to be a historical account, not to offer political conclusions or judgments. 28.     The report traces the history of the former Yugoslavia from the Middle Ages through the Second World War up to the Socialist era, in increasing detail, setting out the perspective of the various ethnic groups (Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs in particular). It continues with the declarations of independence by Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the international political events following the outbreak of hostilities, and the political decision-making that led to the participation of the Netherlands in UNPROFOR and the decision to deploy Dutchbat in the Srebrenica enclave. Events in the Srebrenica area itself following the arrival of Dutchbat, including hostile action by the ARBH and the VRS, are described in detail. 29.     In an epilogue, the report notes that the denial of effective close air support to Dutchbat owed much to the Bosnian Serb response to an air attack carried out in May 1995 on VRS ammunition dumps in Pale, then the Bosnian Serb capital; this had involved taking UNPROFOR personnel hostage and the destruction of an American fighter aircraft by VRS air defences in June 1995. There had also been a failure on the part of governments in possession of intelligence to share it with others. This went a long way towards explaining the turn events had taken. The Dutchbat leadership had been concerned to ensure the well-being of the civilians entrusted to their care; for this they had been dependent on the VRS, and therefore vulnerable to Bosnian Serb manipulation. Finally, the widespread public perception of the Dutchbat operation as a national failure had turned the fall of Srebrenica and its aftermath into a political issue. 30.     These findings induced the incumbent Government to take political responsibility. On 16 April 2002 it announced its resignation. (c)     The French parliamentary inquiry 31.     As France had been a major troop contributor to UNPROFOR as well as being a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations, the French National Assembly ( Assemblée nationale ) decided to conduct a parliamentary inquiry. The report (Eleventh Parliament under the Constitution of 1958 – Onzième législature – no. 3413) was registered by the chairmanship of the National Assembly on 22 November 2001. 32.     The report charts the political and military developments leading to the creation of the “safe areas” in Eastern Bosnia and the VRS attack on Srebrenica. 33.     The massacre is described, but the report stops short of imputing personal responsibility to individuals, preferring to leave that to the criminal tribunals. (d)     The Netherlands parliamentary inquiry 34.     The Government’s resignation led to a debate in the Lower House of Parliament ( Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal ), which decided to carry out a parliamentary inquiry ( parlementaire enquête ) in order to establish individual political, military and official responsibility. 35.     The report (Lower House of Parliament, parliamentary year 2002/03, 28 506, nos. 2-3) was presented on 27 January 2003. It runs to 463 pages, mostly taken up by summaries and excerpts of evidence taken from participants in the various decision-making processes, both domestic and foreign. 36.     The report found that the decision to participate in the international intervention in the former Yugoslavia had been inspired partly by humanitarian motives and partly by the desire, felt by both the Government and Parliament, for the Netherlands to play an active role in promoting international peace and security. However, the decision to deploy a lightly ‑ armed air-mobile infantry battalion to an embattled “safe area” had been inspired by wishful thinking rather than by considerations of feasibility. 37.     Over time self-defence had taken on a greater importance than the fulfilment of UNPROFOR’s mandate and UNPROFOR’s power to deter by its presence had been eroded. The United Nations was primarily to blame for this. 38.     According to the report, the Bosnian Serb side alone was to blame for the crimes committed. However, although fault was found with the Dutchbat leadership and the Netherlands government, the report concluded that it was ultimately unlikely that Dutchbat could have prevented the massacre. (e)     The report of the Republika Srpska Government “Commission for Investigation of the Events in and around Srebrenica between 10th and 19th July 1995” 39.     The “Commission for Investigation of the Events in and around Srebrenica between 10th and 19th July 1995” was established by a decision of the Republika Srpska Government on 15 December 2003. The Commission’s remit was to meet the Republika Srpska’s obligations, flowing from the Human Rights Chamber’s Selimović and Others decision (see paragraphs 47 and 48 below), to conduct its own investigations into the fate of the victims named in the applications lodged with the Human Rights Chamber. 40.     The commission’s report, which was published on 11 June 2004, runs to 45 pages not including appendices. It established the following: “... between 10th and 19th July 1995, several thousands of Bosniaks were executed, in a manner that represents severe violations of International Humanitarian Law and that the perpetrators, inter alia , undertook measures to cover up the crime by reallocating the bodies; ...” In addition, it established the responsibility of organs of the Republika Srpska in the matter. A database of the known victims was set up and the whereabouts of various mass graves were disclosed. 41.     On 10 November 2004 the Republika Srpska Government issued a statement apologising for the crimes committed. 5.     Decisions and judgments relating to the Srebrenica massacre 42.     Many important decisions and judgments relating to the Srebrenica massacre have been published, most notably by the following judicial institutions. (a)     The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 43.     Several individuals have been charged before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in connection with the Srebrenica massacre, among them Major General Radislav Krstić, who shortly after the fall of Srebrenica became commander of the VRS’s Drina Corps. On 2 August 2001 the ICTY’s Trial Chamber delivered a 260-page judgment (IT-98-33-T) finding him guilty of genocide, persecutions and murder and sentencing him to forty-six years’ imprisonment. 44.     The Trial Chamber’s judgment itself gives a detailed description of the events surrounding the fall of Srebrenica to the VRS and the massacre that followed. 45.     Major General Krstić appealed against his conviction and sentence. He did not challenge the Trial Chamber’s description of events, focusing instead on the nature and extent of his criminal responsibility. Ultimately the Appeals Chamber found that, absent proof of genocidal intent, Major General Krstić had not been a principal perpetrator of the crimes committed. It did, however, find him guilty of aiding and abetting genocide and crimes against humanity and reduced his sentence to thirty-five years (judgment of 19 April 2004, IT-98-33-A). (b)     The Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina 46.     The Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina was a domestic human rights court set up under the Human Rights Agreement set out in Annex 6 to the Dayton Peace Agreement. It had fourteen judges, called “Members”, six of whom were nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina (two Bosniacs, two Croats, two Serbs), the remaining eight being nationals neither of Bosnia and Herzegovina nor of any neighbouring State. It existed until the end of 2003. 47.     On 7 March 2003 the Human Rights Chamber gave a decision on forty-nine applications (the Selimović and Others decision). These applications were taken from among some 1,800 similar applications brought before the Human Rights Chamber, all related to the Srebrenica events. 48.     The Human Rights Chamber held that it lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis to consider the events occurring before the entry into force of the Human Rights Agreement on 14 December 1995. It did, however, find violations of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention regarding the failure to provide information to the applicants about their missing relatives and to conduct any meaningful investigation. It added that “[i]n the context of the Srebrenica cases, these violations [were] particularly egregious since this event [had] resulted in the largest and most horrific mass execution of civilians in Europe in the second half of the twentieth century. ...”. It ordered the Republika Srpska to disclose all relevant information in its possession, to release any missing captives still alive, and to conduct a “full, meaningful, thorough, and detailed investigation”. In addition, it ordered the Republika Srpska to pay a total of four million Bosnia and Herzegovina convertible marks (BAM) to the Foundation of the Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial and Cemetery. (c)     The International Court of Justice 49.     On 20 March 1993 the then Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina initiated proceedings in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia alleging, in so far as relevant to the case before the Court, violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. After the entry into force of the Dayton Peace Agreement, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was succeeded as applicant party by Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, after its dissolution, was replaced as respondent party first by Serbia and Montenegro and finally by Serbia, albeit that any responsibility for past events determined by the ICJ involved at the relevant time the State of Serbia and Montenegro. 50.     The ICJ gave judgment on 26 February 2007 ( Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro ), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43). As regards the Srebrenica massacre, it based its findings of fact on those of the ICTY in the above-mentioned judgment of the Trial Chamber in the Krstić case, on the ICTY’s judgment in the Blagojević case (IT-02-60-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 17 January 2005), and on the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations (see paragraph 25 above). 51.     The ICJ held, inter alia , that acts of genocide had been committed by members of the VRS in and around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995 (loc. cit., §§ 291 and 297). However, the decision to commit these acts had been made by individual members of the leadership of the VRS; there was nothing to prove that they had been planned, or committed, by persons for whom the respondent was responsible, or with the knowing complicity of the respondent. The massacre could therefore not be imputed to Serbia and Montenegro (loc. cit . , §§ 413-415 and §§ 423-424). 52.     The ICJ held, nonetheless, that an obligation to prevent genocide existed, albeit a qualified one. The obligation in question was one of conduct and not one of result, in the sense that a State could not be under an obligation to succeed, whatever the circumstances, in preventing the commission of genocide: the obligation of States parties was rather to employ all means reasonably available to them so as to prevent genocide so far as possible. A State did not incur responsibility simply because the desired result was not achieved; responsibility was however incurred if the State manifestly failed to take all measures to prevent genocide which were within its power and which might have contributed to preventing the genocide. 53.     The ICJ went on to find that the authorities of the FRY, and above all its President, Mr Slobodan Milošević, had been aware of the tensions reigning in the Srebrenica area between the various ethnic groups and thus of the danger that genocide might occur. Although undeniably possessing influence over the VRS by dint of “political, military and financial links” with it (loc. cit., § 434), they had not brought their influence to bear on the VRS to prevent the genocide from occurring. The international responsibility of Serbia was thereby engaged (loc. cit., § 438). B.     The domestic proceedings 1.     Initiation of the main proceedings 54.     On 4 June 2007 the applicants summoned the Netherlands State and the United Nations before the Regional Court ( rechtbank ) of The Hague. The summons was a 203-page document in which the applicants stated that the State of the Netherlands (responsible for Dutchbat) and the United Nations (which bore overall responsibility for UNPROFOR), despite earlier promises and despite their awareness of the imminence of an attack by the VRS, had failed to act appropriately and effectively to defend the Srebrenica “safe area” and, after the enclave had fallen to the VRS, to protect the non ‑ combatants present. They therefore bore responsibility for the maltreatment of members of the civilian population, the rape and (in some cases) murder of women, the mass murder of men, and genocide. The applicants based their position both on Netherlands civil law and on international law. 55.     The argument under civil law was, firstly, that the United Nations and the State of the Netherlands had entered into an agreement with the inhabitants of the Srebrenica enclave (including the applicants) to protect them inside the Srebrenica “safe area” in exchange for the disarmament of the ARBH forces present, which agreement the United Nations and the State of the Netherlands had failed to honour; and secondly, that the Netherlands State, with the connivance of the United Nations, had committed a tort ( onrechtmatige daad ) against them by sending insufficiently armed, poorly trained and ill-prepared troops to Bosnia and Herzegovina and failing to provide them with the necessary air support. 56.     The argument under international law, in so far as relevant to the case now before the Court, was based on the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility and Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, the applicants taking the position that the actions of Dutchbat were attributable to both the State of the Netherlands and the United Nations. 57.     Although recognising that individuals were not subjects of classical international law, the applicants argued that the right of victims to redress under international law had been recognised directly by the United Nations General Assembly’s Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, which had direct effect in the Netherlands by virtue of Article 93 of the Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 58.     Anticipating the likelihood that the United Nations would invoke its immunity based on Article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations, the applicants argued that any immunity which that organisation enjoyed could go no further than was necessary for it to carry out its tasks, and moreover that access to a court was guaranteed by, in particular, Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. 59.     It appears that the Minister of Justice did not make use of the possibility provided by section 3a of the Bailiffs Act 2001 ( Gerechtsdeurwaarderswet 2001 , see below) to declare to the bailiff that service of the summons would be contrary to the obligations of the State under international law. 2.     The incident of procedure (a)     Arguments before the Regional Court 60.     The United Nations did not appear before the Regional Court, having previously indicated to the Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in New York that it would not. 61.     The Netherlands State, already a defendant in its own right, also asked to intervene on behalf of the United Nations, or in the alternative to join the proceedings against the United Nations as a defendant. It submitted that in the light of Article 105 § 1 of the Charter of the United Nations taken together with Article II, section 2 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the Netherlands courts lacked competence in so far as the proceedings were directed against the United Nations; it was for the Netherlands courts to recognise the immunity of the United Nations ex officio unless it was explicitly waived. The State had an international legal interest of its own in invoking this immunity, as was reflected particularly in section 3a of the Bailiffs Act 2001. 62.     The applicants argued that the immunity of the United Nations was overridden by, in particular, Article 6 of the Convention and the prohibition of genocide, the latter being a rule of ius cogens that had found its way into treaty law (in the form of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide). 63.     The main proceedings were adjourned pending a final decision in the incident of procedure. (b)     The judgment of the Regional Court 64.     The Regional Court gave judgment on 10 July 2008 ( Landelijk Jurisprudentie Nummer (National Jurisprudence Number, “LJN”) BD6795, English translation LJN BD6796). In so far as relevant to the case before the Court, it found that the failure by the Minister of Justice to make a declaration as provided for by section 3a of the Bailiffs Act 2001 did not imply recognition of the jurisdiction of the Netherlands courts by the Netherlands State. 65.     Conversely, the State had an interest of its own in defending the United Nations’ immunity from jurisdiction in view of its obligations under Article 105 § 1 of the Charter of the United Nations. The Regional Court then noted that the United Nations had indicated its desire to see its immunity respected, as it invariably did, and found that the immunity of the United Nations was in fact recognised in international legal practice. 66.     According to the Regional Court, neither the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide nor any other rule of international law, whether defined by treaty, by customary law or by State practice, obliged the Netherlands to enforce the prohibition of genocide through its civil law; the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide provided only that States should ensure that genocide was punished. 67.     Referring to the case-law of this Court ( Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI), the Regional Court found that in principle the sovereign immunity of a State was not overridden by the prohibition of torture laid down in Article 3 of the Convention. The prohibition of torture being as much a rule of ius cogens as the prohibition of genocide, it could be concluded that, in the current state of international law, immunity from civil suit in a domestic court – whether enjoyed by a sovereign State or by an international organisation – was not overridden by ius cogens . 68.     It followed that the United Nations’ immunity was not functional, to be weighed in the balance by the domestic courts, but absolute. 69.     As to Article 6 of the Convention, the Regional Court pointed to the decision of this Court in Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v.   France, Germany and Norway ((dec.) [GC], nos.   71412/01 and 78166/01, 2 May 2007). It had been held in that decision that troop-contributing nations could not be held to account for the actions of forces placed at the disposal of the United Nations for international peacekeeping operations. From this it followed that Article 6 could not be invoked in support of an exception to the immunity from suit of the United Nations itself. 70.     The Regional Court was aware that the Court had, in Waite and Kennedy v. Germany ([GC], no. 26083/94, ECHR 1999-I), and Beer and Regan v. Germany ([GC], no. 28934/95, 18 February 1999), made statements suggesting that the immunity of an international organisation was compatible with Article 6 of the Convention only if the organisation itself offered a reasonable alternative for the protection of Convention rights. However, the creation of the United Nations predated the entry into force of the Convention. Moreover, the United Nations was an organisation whose membership was well-nigh universal; this distinguished it from organisations such as the European Space Agency, the organisation in issue in Waite and Kennedy and Beer and Regan , which had been created only in 1980 and whose membership was limited to European States. Moreover, the Court itself had recognised the special position of the United Nations in Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway . At all events, if any State were to exercise jurisdiction over the United Nations, that State should be the one within whose territory the organisation had its seat or the acts complained of had taken place; in the present case, that excluded the Netherlands. 71.     The Regional Court thus declined jurisdiction with regard to the United Nations without finding it necessary to rule on the request by the Netherlands State for permission to intervene or join the proceedings. (c)     Arguments before the Court of Appeal 72.     The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal ( gerechtshof ) of The Hague. Their principal arguments may be summarised as follows. 73.     In so far as relevant to the case before the Court, they argued that the State’s reliance on the absolute immunity of the United Nations went hand in hand with its argument that the United Nations alone bore responsibility for the failure to prevent the act of genocide constituted by the Srebrenica massacre. To accept that argument would be to deny access to a court to the surviving kin of the victims of the massacre, which was legally, humanly and morally wrong. The Regional Court had overlooked the nature of the State’s argument, which was based not so much on its need to meet its obligations under international law as on its own self-interest, clearly understood ( welbegrepen eigenbelang ). It was not the purpose of the international legal obligation to allow the State to evade its own responsibility. 74.     The United Nations had been required by Article VIII, section 29 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations to institute some form of settlement mechanism for disputes of a private nature to which it was a party, but in the more than sixty years of its existence it had failed to do so. There was therefore an urgent need for the Netherlands domestic courts to assume jurisdiction. 75.     The Al-Adsani judgment of this Court was not appropriate precedent, since the immunity of an international organisation was different from the immunity of a sovereign State. Moreover, in Al-Adsani the Court had been deeply divided. The majority position in Al-Adsani had been criticised in that it had allowed sovereign immunity to trump a rule of ius cogens , namely the prohibition of torture. It was still more inappropriate to allow the functional immunity of an international organisation to override an even more fundamental rule of ius cogens , namely the prohibition of genocide. 76.     In the Kadi and Al-Barakaat cases, both the Advocate-General to the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the Court of Justice itself had demonstrated a willingness to step in and provide access to a court where the United Nations itself had failed to do so (the applicants referred to Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities , judgment of 3 September 2008). (d)     The judgment of the Court of Appeal 77.     The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 30 March 2010 (LJN   BL8979). It allowed the State to join the proce