“Het hof is van oordeel dat onvoldoende gebleken is dat het bezit van een VN-pas een voorwaarde was die de Bosnische Serviërs hadden gesteld. […] Uit de verklaring van Franken volgt dat bezit van een VN-pas niet noodzakelijk was. Hij verklaarde immers dat de mensen in dienst van de Opstina, die niet in dienst van de VN waren, van Mladic met Dutchbat mee mochten en dat op de lijst die vervolgens werd opgesteld zowel mensen van het lokale personeel van de Opstina als mensen met VN-pasjes, voor zover nog aanwezig, voorkwamen (proces-verbaal voorlopig getuigenverhoor p. 7-8).
6.17 Het hof gaat er bovendien van uit dat op de compound een VN-pas voor Mustafic had kunnen worden gemaakt. […] Het hof is overigens van oordeel dat de juistheid van deze stelling afdoende blijkt uit de aangehaalde verklaring van Oosterveen, omdat uit zijn verklaring volgt dat hij persoonlijke ervaring had met het vervaardigen van VN-passen op de compound.”
English translation by the court:
“The Court holds the opinion that it has not been demonstrated sufficiently that the possession of a UN-pass was a requirement that had been demanded by the Bosnian Serbs. Franken’s statement shows that the possession of a UN-pass was not necessary. For Franken has tesitified that Mladic had granted permission for the people employed by the Opština, who were not employed by the UN, to leave with Dutchbat and that on the list that was drawn up subsequently appeared both local personnel employed by the Opština and persons with UN-passes, as far as still present (court record of preliminary witness examination p. 7-8).
6.17 In addition, the Court takes the position that it would have been possible to make a UN-pass for Mustafic at the compound. For that matter, the Court deems that the correctness of this assertion is proven conclusively by the quoted statement of Oosterveen because, as appears from his statement, he had personal experience in producing UN-passes at the compound.”
the ruling recognizes the wrongful conduct by Dutchbat
the ruling interestingly turns a complex military and politician dilemma, as presented by the Dutch state in its defense at least, back to a very human and almost practical issue: it argues that Dutchbat’s reliance on bureaucratic rules was actually their own invention, and not required by the Bosnian-Serbs or the situation. It argues that the UN-card was both not necessary to allow Mustafić to leave the compound, and could have been easily made if Duthbat for any reason insisted on the presence of such a card. Thus, the ruling can be understood as a dismantling of the institutional injustice of the Dutch state. It can also be said to confirm the epistemic justice intervention made by the claimants, who brought in a different reading of what happened during these July days than brought forward by the Dutch state
EPISTEMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (IN)JUSTICE
HEGEMONIC AND COUNTER NARRATIVES
Actor: Court of Appeal The Hague
Item type: Ruling
Date: 5 July 2011
Source: http://www.rechtspraak.nl
DoJ Researcher: Niké Wentholt
DoJ Research project: Social-Legal Synthesis (PI & Postdoc)
Language: Dutch
Translated to: English
Context
This project broadens the classic Transitional Justice focus on mass human rights violations towards social, economic and ecological violence. Building upon the findings of the four case studies this project examines the full array of recognition and reparation procedures currently taking place in civil courts. It also includes ‘alternative routes’ (non-legal and hybrid mechanisms) into the analysis. To account for this breadth, the findings of the individual projects will be synthesized in two ways: First (1), a socio-legal analysis, resulting into a report and a toolkit, will explore how people seek and define justice and recognition in legal contexts. Second (2), a dialogical analysis, resulting in a monograph, will integrate the understudied social dimensions of recognition and reparation. Both will show the potential of recognition and reparation procedures to create transformative justice.
