In July 1995, Bosnian Serbs killed between 7,000 and 8,000 Bosniac1 males in a matter of days. This took place in and around the region of Srebrenica, which ironically was designated a ‘safe area’ by the United Nations (‘UN’). At the time, the Dutch armed troops were on the ground in Srebrenica in a UN mission to establish peace. In the Mothers of Srebrenica case the Dutch courts had to decide whether the Dutch troops on the ground had failed to ensure the right to life and prohibition of torture of thousands of Bosniac males. In 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court found that, if the Dutch troops had allowed (only) approximately 350 Bosniac males to remain in their compound, those victims would have had 10% chance of survival. Nevertheless, the Court found the Dutch troops’ other actions, including the alleged failures to protect other victims in Srebrenica and to report war crimes to the UN, and the Dutchbat involvement in separation of Bosniac males, who were handed over to Bosnian Serbs, to be lawful. In this paper, I argue the Dutch Supreme Court reversed the test of positive obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’ or ‘Convention’) from the duty of means to that of a result and failed to diligently examine the decision-making, planning and operations of Dutchbat to determine whether, at the time, the State authorities had done all they could have reasonably done to protect or, at the least, minimise the risk to life.

中文翻译：

---

斯雷布雷尼察母亲案中的生命权：将保护手段义务的积极义务转变为结果义务

1995 年 7 月，波斯尼亚塞族人在几天内杀死了 7,000 至 8,000 名波斯尼亚人。这发生在斯雷布雷尼察地区及其周边地区，具有讽刺意味的是，该地区被联合国（“UN”）指定为“安全区”。当时，荷兰武装部队正在斯雷布雷尼察执行联合国建立和平的任务。在斯雷布雷尼察母亲案中，荷兰法院必须裁定荷兰军队是否未能确保数千名波斯尼亚男性的生命权和禁止酷刑。2019 年，荷兰最高法院发现，如果荷兰军队（仅）允许大约 350 名波斯尼亚男性留在他们的大院中，这些受害者将有 10% 的生存机会。尽管如此，法院还是认定荷兰军队的其他行为，包括据称未能保护斯雷布雷尼察的其他受害者并向联合国报告战争罪行，以及荷兰营参与将被移交给波斯尼亚塞族人的波斯尼亚男性合法分离。在本文中，我认为荷兰最高法院将《欧洲人权公约》（“ECHR”或“公约”）第 2 条和第 3 条对积极义务的检验从手段义务转变为结果义务，并且未能认真检查荷兰营的决策、规划和运营，以确定当时国家当局是否已尽其所能保护或至少将生命风险降至最低。