UN immmunity in Srebrenica case

07 April 2010 by Hermione Gee

The United Nations and the Dutch state cannot be prosecuted for failing to protect Bosnian victims of the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, a Dutch appeals court ruled today, rejecting a suit filed against both parties by a victims rights’ group.

"The Dutch judge in this case upholds the UN’s immunity," the ruling stated, adding that it accepts “the (Dutch) state as a joint party at the side of the UN.”

During the Bosnian War (1992-1995) Srebrenica was a UN safe haven in Bosnia and Herzegovina, protected by Dutch peacekeepers. But in July 1995, Serbian forces entered the area, resulting in the massacre of close to 8,000 Muslim men and boys.

'Totallly helpless'
The victims rights group the Mothers of Srebrenica filed a civil suit against the UN and The Netherlands in 2007. Marco Gerritsen, who represents the group before the Dutch court, said: "Troops were sent to protect these people, but they did not do what was in their power to protect the civilians. These people were left totally helpless against the Serbs. It was a UN mission so, primarily, the responsibility of what happened lays with the UN."

But he says the Dutch government is also to blame: "At a critical point, Dutch ministers called the UN and explicitly asked them - or forced them - to stop the air attacks on the Serbs because they were afraid that Dutch soldiers might be hurt."

Want to read more?

If you subscribe to a free membership, you can read this article and explore our full archive, dating back to 1997.

Subscribe now

Related articles

19 February 2007 by Laetitia Grotti

One year ago on January 6, 2006, the 17 members of Morocco's Equity and Reconciliation Commission (IER) were closing up shop after submitting their final report to King Mohammed VI. The Moroccan truth commission had received a flood of compliments from the international community praising the recommendations in its report, especially those advocating legislative and constitutional reforms. One year later, however, the results have been rather mixed.

11 September 2006 by our correspondent in Arusha

After having tried high-ranking officers, ministers, businessmen, priests, journalists, local officials and militiamen, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is in uncharted waters. On September 11, the most famous rwandese troubadour of his generation will stand trial for genocide. 

23 October 2006 by Christine Chaumeau

China is keeping a polite distance from international criminal justice. Beijing is hardly disinterested, but China does want to make sure that these new global mechanisms are not going to infringe upon its sovereignty by delving into particularly sensitive cases such as Tibet. 

United Nations Operation in Burundi disarms rebel forces in Mbanda in February 2005 (Photo: Flickr/UN Photo/Martine Perret)
03 June 2015 by Janet H. Anderson, The Hague (The Netherlands)

Over the last month, Burundi has hit the headlines as the president put himself forward to be elected for a controversial third term, resulting in street protests, thousands of refugees who fled instability and an attempted coup. Behind the issues of elections and constitutionalism are also those of justice following Burundi’s long-running civil war. The international community supported an intensive process of negotiation and the signing of the Arusha Accord in 2000. But in the decade and a half since, its provisions on justice have been debated though never fully implemented.

06 November 2006 by Pierre Hazan

France's attitude towards international criminal justice is marked by ambiguity. Paris subscribes to a vision of the world in which international humanitarian law is considered a way to curb violence against civilian populations, but at the same time it is wary of an unchecked judicial system that could end up prosecuting French soldiers engaged in areas where it has old and deep-rooted interests.