A painkiller that hurt: how Vioxx users got even

During the Indonesian War of Independence, countless Indonesian men were executed without trial by Dutch soldiers. The Dutch state has since acknowledged that systematic and extreme violence and publicly apologized for it. Yet the surviving relatives of these men - now in their elderly years - are told that they are not eligible for compensation. Linde Mayer assists thirteen of them. What happened In the Indonesian War of Independence (1945 - 1949), the Dutch army conducted operations in which Indonesian men were summary executions. No charges, no defense, no verdict. The victims were killed on the spot. In many cases, their deaths were not documented. Decades later, the Dutch State established the regulation ‘Contours of civil law settlement to compensate children of victims of summary executions in the former Dutch East Indies. This regulation allows children of executed men to apply for compensation. Our clients made use of that possibility. Their requests were denied. The impact The men who were executed left behind children. Those children grew up without a father, without an explanation and without any recognition of what was done to their families. Many have carried the consequences with them throughout their lives. Therefore, the rejection of their requests affects them not only financially, but especially in what is really important to them: recognition. Recognition that they have been wronged, and that this injustice has had lasting consequences. The State says it recognizes that injustice. Its application shows otherwise. An unfeasible burden of proof The heart of the problem lies in the standard of proof used by the scheme. To qualify for compensation, relatives must prove that their father's execution was mentioned in published, public sources. That is precisely where it goes wrong: summary executions were often not documented or not recognizably documented at the time. Consequently, in many cases, they cannot be found in the sources called for by the settlement. The State acknowledges that these executions took place, but at the same time demands evidence that is usually not there. This puts relatives in an impossible position of proof. What Beer advocaten does We have asked the State to enter into consultations in the short term. Those consultations have two goals. The first is to review the standard of proof. In its current form, it excludes precisely the group for which the rule is intended. Second, we want to discuss with the State what evidence is available and how it can be carefully considered. We await a response from the State. If consultation does not lead to a solution, our clients will consider further steps. The urgency is great. All survivors are at an advanced age. If the assessment of their requests takes too long, the settlement risks overshooting its goal. How Linde Mayer looks at this case ’What touches me in this case is the fundamental contradiction in the State's position. On the one hand, the Netherlands acknowledges that there has been systematic and extreme violence

On July 17, 2014, flight MH17 crashed over Ukraine. All 298 occupants were killed. Among them were 196 Dutch nationals. For the bereaved families, a period of loss, uncertainty and years of struggle for truth, recognition and justice began. What happened and the impact on people and society Investigation by the Dutch Safety Board and the international Joint Investigation Team revealed that flight MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile. According to that investigation, the installation had been transferred to the area from which the plane was fired shortly before the disaster. To date, Russia denies any involvement. For the bereaved families, the impact of the disaster is enormous. Some lost their entire family in one fell swoop. For many families, not only was a loved one taken away, but also a foundation of daily life. That Russia continues to deny any involvement and does not share truthful information makes the loss for bereaved families even heavier. Questions remain. Was it a mistake? Did they think they were shooting at a military aircraft? Precisely because answers are not forthcoming, many bereaved families find it difficult to conclude their grieving process. The disaster also left deep scars in the Netherlands. Because of the large number of Dutch victims, MH17 became an event that not only affected individual families, but the disaster is also part of Dutch history. The interests at stake In this case, the interests of the relatives are paramount. They want recognition for what happened to them, clarity about the facts and accountability of the responsible parties. In addition, the case touches on broader questions about international legal order and legal protection. For surviving relatives it is of great importance that not only nationally, but also internationally is pronounced what has been established and what responsibility this entails. For whom Beer advocaten stands up We represent the interests of nearly 300 surviving relatives of more than 100 victims of flight MH17. We do so in various proceedings, nationally and internationally. Our commitment from the beginning has been to use all possible legal routes that could contribute to recognition, truth-telling and justice for our clients. The legal approach and challenges The legal approach had three tracks, in the order in which they played out: negotiations with the Malaysia Airlines insurer, a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, and criminal proceedings. First, negotiations were conducted with the Malaysia Airlines insurer on behalf of next of kin. As a carrier, the airline bears its own liability under aviation law. On the basis of those negotiations, compensation amounts were paid for our clients. A complaint was then filed with the European Court of Human Rights against Russia on behalf of relatives. That was not an obvious step. There were also noises that this route would have little chance of success. Nevertheless, we filed that complaint because we felt that this route should be taken. The criminal proceedings had exceptional challenges. It involved a very large group of relatives, with different nationalities and different needs. In a regular criminal case, there is often direct and individual contact with clients.

Between February 19 and 28, 1999, thousands of people visited the Westfriese Flora in Bovenkarspel, then the largest flower exhibition in the world. What was supposed to be a day out turned into a disaster. Some 318 visitors became infected with the legionella bacteria. At least 32 of them did not survive. What happened Part of the Flora was a consumer trade show, which included hot tubs on display. Legionella bacteria had developed in one or more of those baths. The exhibitor had not added chlorine to the water. The reasoning: no one would sit in the bath anyway. That reasoning turned out fatally. Legionella bacteria spread through water droplets in the air. Walking along the bath was enough to become infected. Legionella-induced Legionnaires' disease was diagnosed in about 318 visitors. The disease caused permanent lung problems. At least 32 people died from the effects. Many of those affected were from the West Friesland region. The community as a whole felt affected. Enforcing recognition At the request of the Consumers' Association, Beer advocaten took up the case for all victims and surviving relatives. The exhibitors who owned the contaminated hot tub were held liable. The Westfriese Flora itself and the Dutch State were also sued, arguing that not enough had been done to identify the danger of legionella and take measures. The Alkmaar District Court rejected the claims against the Flora and the State in 2002. It found that only the exhibitors had acted unlawfully. All parties appealed. Three problems of proof The case had a number of intractable obstacles. The first was medical: was it possible to become infected simply by walking past the hot tub? That had to be substantiated. The second was factual: How do you prove that visitors had actually been at the Flora? Many victims had bought their tickets in cash and had not kept them. Smartphones did not exist in 1999; there were hardly any photographs. The third problem was financial and unexpected. A defunct foundation The insurer of the liable exhibitor had paid out the full sum insured. Just not to the victims. The money, nearly 600,000 euros, had been placed in the Talpa Foundation, based in the eastern part of the country. The foundation had been set up by the stand holder and his insurer, ostensibly for the benefit of the victims. Its existence had been kept secret for years. When the Consumers' Association discovered the existence of Stichting Talpa, it initiated summary proceedings. The Zutphen District Court ordered the foundation to enter into consultation with the Consumers' Association within three months and determine a compensation scheme. An independent administrator was appointed. That administrator determined that the money in the foundation could no longer be found. Insurer pays again After talks with the insurer, Nationale-Nederlanden decided on a second payment, this time directly for the benefit of the victims, plus interest. An independent board reviewed the individual claims. Victims who could prove that they had been infected on the Flora and had suffered damages that had not already been compensated in other ways were eligible for payment. In the case of personal injury claims,