THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The Latest on a Dutch Supreme Court ruling on the 1995 Srebrenica massacre (all times local):
Relatives of the victims of the Srebrenica massacre have blasted the Dutch Supreme Court verdict that the Netherlands was partially liable in the deaths of some of the Muslim men killed by Bosnian Serbs in 1995.
Zakira Efendic says “we surrendered to them (Dutch soldiers) believing they would save us.” The 73-year-old who lost her husband and two sons in Srebrenica, adds “this verdict is a disgrace … a disgrace for the whole world.”
Efendic and other victims’ relatives on Friday visited the graves of their loved ones following the ruling by the highest court in the Netherlands.
Asim Salihovic, who had 40 relatives killed at Srebrenica, says “they would have protected us if they wanted to.” He asks: “What do they mean with 10% liability? As if 10% of us lived here?”
The Dutch Supreme Court has upheld the partial liability of the Netherlands in the deaths of about 350 Bosnian Muslim men who were murdered by Bosnian Serb forces during the 1995 Srebrenica massacre.
Presiding Judge Kees Streefkerk said that Dutch United Nations peacekeepers bore partial liability for the deaths because the troops evacuated 5,000 Muslim refugees from a Dutch military compound knowing that they were “were in serious jeopardy of being abused and murdered.”
The highest Dutch court however reduced the amount of damages relatives of the murdered men are eligible to claim from the Dutch state.
The Dutch Supreme Court is set to rule in a long-running legal battle over whether the Netherlands can be held liable in the deaths of more than 300 Muslim men who were murdered by Bosnian Serb forces during the 1995 Srebrenica massacre.
The Netherlands’ highest court is passing judgment Friday in appeals against a 2017 ruling by a lower court that the Dutch government was partially liable in the men’s deaths during the bloody climax of the 1992-95 Bosnian war.
In January, the Supreme Court’s Advocate General issued a non-binding advisory opinion calling the 2017 judgment “irrational” and saying it “cannot be upheld.”