155 and 2004.280 In the latter document the qualitative and quantitative improvement of

the reports on landmines to the UN was explicitly added to the compliance target.281

Results

Landmine Monitor reported in 2006 that the overall compliance rate of States Parties in submitting Article 7 reports was an impressive 96 percent. This compares to 96 percent in 2005, 91 percent in 2004, 88 percent in 2003 and 75 percent in 2002.282 _An

update of the Implementation Support Unit in May 2003 demonstrated that the 2002 annual reporting rate was also considerably higher than in previous years (56 percent in 1999, 51 percent in 2000, and 59 percent in 2001). By its participation in joint démarches within the framework of the Ottawa Convention and through EU démarches, the Netherlands contributed directly to the annual increase of the rate of compliance with Article 7 of the Ottawa Convention.

Interventions

The Dutch interventions on compliance comprised both actions targeted at States Parties to meet the Article 7 obligations of the convention and actions dealing with alleged cases of non-compliance with the convention.

Within the Ottawa framework the Netherlands participated in several series of démarches to promote high-quality and on-time reporting compliance with the Article 7 reporting requirements. At the initiative of Canada, a first series of joint démarches was conducted by a small group of States Parties (with Belgium as leading country) in the autumn of 1999. The aim of the initiative was to approach countries whose reports were late or whose deadline was coming up in a few months. The Netherlands took responsibility for démarches in the Middle East/North Africa region – notably for Yemen (late report), Qatar and Tunisia (reports due at a future date). In October 1999 a démarche was carried out in Yemen to make inquiries about the reasons for late reporting. After consultations with the embassies in the countries concerned it was decided to abandon démarches in Qatar and Tunisia.283 _{Over and above this, the}

Netherlands participated in démarches in eight countries in the European Union/ Western Europe region.

Early 2001 Belgium initiated a second series of démarches in countries whose reports were late or due at a future date. The Netherlands was again approached to participate in the initiative, and carried out démarches in three countries whose reports were late (Mali, Uganda and Namibia). At the same time it decided to abandon démarches in countries whose reports were due at a future date. According to the Dutch, these

280 TK, 28600, V, nr. 2. 281 TK, 29200, V, nr. 2. 282 Landmine Monitor, 2006.

283 Carrying out a formal démarche in Tunisia was not thought fit because the country had just ratified the convention and its report was not yet late. Canada took over the démarche in Qatar .

156

countries had not yet done anything wrong and carrying out démarches could only be considered as patronising.

In 2002 and 2003 the Netherlands carried out démarches in Afghanistan, Eritrea, Qatar, Surinam, Tajikistan, and Uganda to encourage these countries to comply with the annual obligations in Article 7. In 2004 the Netherlands also volunteered to carry out démarches in countries that were late in submitting their reports. It became responsible for Eritrea and Guyana, but did not conduct démarches in these two countries. A démarche in Eritrea turned out to be unnecessary because this country had already submitted its report. A démarche in Guyana was thought to be inappropriate since the report of this country was only due at a future date.

At the same time démarches with regard to the Article 7 requirements were conducted by the joint EU states. Furthermore, EU démarches were conducted with regard to Article 9 national implementation measures of the Ottawa Convention. Article 9 obliges each State Party to take all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures, including the imposition of penal sanctions, to prevent and suppress any activity under its jurisdiction or control. Based on the analysis of the Article 7 reports it was noted that countries had not yet complied with the Article 9 national

implementation measures. Consequently démarches were carried out in 2001 and 2006 to promote the implementation of national measures in accordance with the Article 9 of the Ottawa Convention.

In addition to the multiple interventions with regard to compliance with the Article 7 obligations of the convention, the Netherlands strove to deal with cases of non- compliance. Throughout the years, the eyes of the Ottawa community were particularly on the alleged use of anti-personnel mines in Angola and Uganda. In August 1998 it appeared from reliable sources that in the course of intensifying military activities the Angolan forces had again started to lay anti-personnel mines as well as anti-tank mines and had partially stopped the demining of identified minefields, while Angola being a signatory to the Ottawa Convention. In addition, the EU had been reliably informed that UNITA was also undertaking widespread activities of laying anti-personnel mines and anti-vehicle mines. Thereupon Germany, who was acting for the EU presidency in Angola, proposed carrying out a troika démarche to urge the Angolan government to stop the laying of APMs on its soil forthwith and to resume demining activities. The Netherlands agreed with Germany that it would be appropriate to undertake a démarche to the Angolan government to express its concern about the placement of anti-personnel mines. However, no consensus could be reached in the EU on a troika démarche. Only three countries (Germany, the UK and the Netherlands) seemed willing to support such a démarche, while one country (Portugal) indicated that it would reject any common EU declaration regarding Angola because of bilateral sensitivities. The majority of EU countries felt that it would be politically unwise to démarche the government of Angola, since this would be only rejected by the government, who

157