A hágai fellebbviteli bíróság (Gerechtshof ’s-Gravenhage) háromfős bírói tanácsának július 5-i ítélete először állapította meg a holland állam felelősségét a Srebrenica környékén történt eseményekben való holland részvétel miatt. Az ítélet szerint a holland békefenntartóknak (Dutchbat) nem lett volna szabad kiszolgáltatniuk három muzulmán férfit a szerb fegyvereseknek, mert tudhatták, hogy azokat így veszélynek teszik ki.
Az ítélet (LJN: BR0132) holland nyelven itt olvasható.
A bíróság angol nyelvű összefoglalójából alapján pedig a főbb megállapítások:
“Among the refugees who had sought refuge to the compound was the family (father, mother and younger brother) of the interpreter of Dutchbat and the electrician of Dutchbat (wife and children). The brother of the interpreter and the electrician were sent by Dutchbat from the compound at the end of
First the Court of Appeal had to take a decision about the defence of the State that the Dutchbat military acted under the auspices of the UN and that the State, therefore, was not responsible for the actions of Dutchbat. The Court of Appeal has rejected this defence. The Court of Appeal judged that Dutchbat was acting under the command of the UN but that after the fall of Srebrenica an extraordinary situation had come into being in which the Dutch Government became more actively involved with Dutchbat and with the evacuation of the refugees. In view of this involvement the Court of Appeal judges that the State was responsible for the way Dutchbat treated the abovementioned Muslim men.
The Court is of the opinion that Dutchbat should not have sent the electrician and the interpreter’s brother from the compound and they had to have anticipated that the interpreter’s father would follow his son. Dutchbat had witnessed in the meanwhile more than one incident in which Bosnian Serbs had beaten up or killed male refugees outside the compound. Therefore, at the end of the afternoon of
The Court considered explicitly that its judgment in this case is exclusively related to the specific situation of these individuals. No judgment is given about the situation of the other refugees. The position of the other refugees, which differs in certain aspects from the case at hand, is not at issue in this procedure.”