The Supreme Court of the Netherlands (the Court) has issued two judgments upholding separate judgments of the Hague Court of Appeal finding the Dutch State (the State) responsible for the death of certain Muslims from Srebrenica.  According to the press release, both cases concern the actions of the Dutch battalion (Dutchbat), part of the United Nations Protection Force, immediately after the fall of the Srebrenica enclave on July 11, 1995.  In the first case, Hasan Nuhanovic, a United Nations employee in the Dutchbat compound in Potocari, was on the list of local personnel who could be evacuated with Dutchbat.  Though his father, mother, and brother had also sought refuge in the compound, they were forced to leave because they were not on the list. They were ultimately murdered by the Bosnian-Serb army or related paramilitary groups. In the second case, Rizo Mustafic, an electrician working under Dutchbat authority in the Potocari compound, along with his wife and children was forced to leave the compound because the family was not on the list.  Mustafic was subsequently murdered by the Bosnian-Serb army or related paramilitary groups.
Both Hasan Nuhanovic and the family of Rizo Mustafic brought separate suits against the State, arguing that Dutchbat had acted wrongfully in sending their family members away from the compound.  Though the District Court rejected both plaintiffs' applications for relief on the ground that Dutchbat's conduct was exclusively attributable to the United Nations, the Court of Appeal set aside the lower court judgments on the ground that the State was responsible for the wrongful conduct of Dutchbat.  The Court found that public international law allowed conduct to be attributed to the State because it had effective control over Dutchbat's conduct, and further that such conduct was wrongful.  According to the press release, the Court also rejected the State's argument in favor of judicial restraint, reasoning that "there would be virtually no scope for the courts to assess the conduct of a troop contingent in the context of a peace mission. According to the Supreme Court, this is unacceptable. However, a court that assesses the conduct of a troop contingent in retrospect must make allowance for the fact that the decisions in question were taken under great pressure in a war situation."