The editors of the Netherlands International Law Review have asked Mr. J.B.J.M. ten Berge and myself to contribute articles on the subject of the National Ombudsman, a new institution in the Netherlands. We have agreed that I should deal with the historical background and legal character of this institution, comparing it with the Justitie Ombudsman (hereinafter referred to as the J.O.) in Sweden and the Folketingets Ombudsmand (hereinafter referred to as the F.O.) in Denmark, while Mr. ten Berge would deal with the technical aspects.

From 1 January 1982 the Act of 4 February 1981 (Off. Gaz. 1981, No. 35) dealing with the institution of the National Ombudsman and the amendment of a number of laws, entered into force. From this date there has been a national Ombudsman in the Netherlands. His function within the organisation of the State is comparable to the General Chamber of Audit, i.e., a High Council of State.

The difference between the system of criminal procedure in common law countries and that in civil law countries is often described in terms of an adversary or accusatory, as opposed to a non-adversary, investigatory, or inquisitorial system of procedure.1 In the adversary system the proceedings are seen as a conflict between two parties with opposing roles, who in principle are on an equal footing. The parties can determine the limits of their contest between themselves. In principle, the role of the judge is a passive one; he ensures that the procedural rules are observed by all parties and decides on the outcome of the conflict. In this system the accused cannot be interrogated as such but he can be questioned as a witness, although only if he so desires. In the continental inquisitorial system, on the other hand, the trial is seen as an ‘official and thorough inquiry’ 2 into whether an offence has been committed and if so which sanctions should be imposed. The notion of ‘objective truth’ is central to this system and as a consequence the ‘parties’ cannot limit the fact-finding by mutual consent. The accused can be interrogated, even if he does not want to be.

The shooting down of the South Korean civilian airliner by the Soviet Union has made prominent the lacunae in the efficacy of international law to ensure the safety of transborder air transport. In this tragedy, on 1 September 1983, 269 civilian passengers and members of crew lost their lives, in a time of peace, by the violent action of a state which was not at war with any of the states of which the victims were nationals. Since this type of aggression has not occurred for the first time, and since widely available air travel has made people of the world ever more susceptible to these risks, it is paramount that all nations strive to ensure the modification of rules of international law, effectively preventing the recurrence of these horrendous mishaps.

On 4 October 1982 the European Parliament accepted a resolution by which the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the EEC were invited to arrive at a common position concerning the Baltic question and to submit this question to the UN subcommittee session for decolonization and the follow-up conferences on European Security and Co-operation.1 The European Parliament were in this respect, inter alia: “mindful of the fact that the Russian annexation of the three Baltic states until now has not formally been recognized by most European countries and the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia2 and the Holy See still hold the concept of ‘Baltic State’ (…)”. It is thus perhaps worthwhile to investigate the position of the Netherlands regarding the Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.