Admissibility – The applicant brought summary civil proceedings (kort geding) against the Netherlands State before the President of the Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague. He sought an order directed against the State for his unconditional release; in the alternative, for him to be returned to the FRY; in the further alternative, for the State to make representations to ‘the so-called Tribunal’ (i.e. the ICTY) and other competent international bodies and institutions for his release; in the still further alternative, for the State to make representations to ‘the alleged Tribunal’ (again, i.e. the ICTY) and other competent international bodies and institutions for his return to the FRY. He argued, essentially, that his transfer to the ICTY was illegal as a matter of the domestic law of the FRY; that the ICTY itself lacked a basis in international law, having been set up by a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations (to wit, resolution no. 827 of 25 May 1993) and not by a multilateral treaty; that the ICTY was the handmaiden of NATO and therefore not an independent and impartial tribunal in the sense of Article 6 of the Convention; that the actions of the Security Council and the ICTY were discriminatory; and that he was entitled to immunity as a former head of state. In view of these considerations the Netherlands State was acting unlawfully by allowing him to be detained and remain in detention on its territory,
Judges:
J-P Costa, P
Citations:
77631/01, [1999] ECHR 194
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights, International
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441990
