THIS WEEK, substantive proceedings have begun in which relatives of the victims of the December murders are demanding reparation and compensation. The case comes after the criminal court reached a final verdict and sentenced five suspects – all ex-military – to prison.
When government officials, such as military personnel and police officers, commit crimes using state resources, responsibility cannot be passed on to the individual alone. In a legal and moral sense, there is a lasting liability on the State itself. After all, it is the government that trains, arms, directs these officials and gives them the authority to act on its behalf. Where that mandate is abused, the State cannot hide behind the argument that it concerns “individual action”.
This principle has been repeatedly confirmed internationally. In countries such as Argentina, relatives of victims of the military dictatorship have successfully filed lawsuits against the State, resulting in both compensation and official recognition of the injustice committed. Similar processes have also been followed in Chile and South Africa, with truth commissions and legal proceedings obliging the State to take responsibility for systematic violations by security services. In the Netherlands itself, relatives of victims of excessive violence during the colonial war in Indonesia have successfully initiated civil proceedings against the State, resulting in an apology and compensation.
These examples underline that the right to reparation and compensation is not an abstract principle, but a concrete enforceable right. Surviving relatives who have the courage to file such a case are therefore firmly within their rights. They not only ask for financial compensation, but above all for recognition: confirmation that what was done to their loved ones was unlawful and should never have happened.
The discussion should therefore not revolve around the question of whether the State is liable, but how this responsibility is fulfilled in a fair and transparent manner. Attempts to limit or avoid liability undermine confidence in the rule of law. On the contrary, recognizing mistakes and offering recovery strengthens that trust.
There is also no need to discuss the timing of filing the case of the relatives of the December murders. Injustice does not expire in a moral sense, and in many cases not legally either when it concerns serious human rights violations. The right of survivors to seek justice continues regardless of the passage of time.
A mature constitutional state does not demonstrate its strength by denying mistakes, but by taking responsibility when things go wrong.
