What type of immunity did the U.N. claim, sovereign immunity?
The U.N. charter of 1946 states that the U.N. has immunity, however that immunity is not boundless. It’s a functional immunity that the U.N. uses to fulfill its purposes but it is not without restriction. It’s clear that without immunity, the U.N. could not function, but this is such an exceptional case in which the U.N. made so many mistakes and didn’t fulfill its mandate and obligations towards these people. So we are convinced that in this specific case immunity cannot be upheld. The Dutch state is a defendant as well, correct? Yes. Today’s ruling does not pertain to the involvement of the Dutch state–there’s no question as to the court’s jurisdiction [in that matter]. The Dutch state has appeared as a party to the proceedings while the U.N. has not. You say the U.N. didn’t adequately reinforce the Dutch peacekeepers, who themselves did not intervene, so both the U.N. and the Dutch state are liable for damages resulting from the massacre? Yes. The Dutch state says, “Listen, we are
