Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
US and Russian officials begin talks in Saudi Arabia on resetting relations and Ukraine war
Vatican cancels Pope Francis's weekend events as he continues to receive hospital treatment
Viewers call for change in Dancing with the Stars voting format after Kevin Dundon remains on show
Some of the 30,000 predominantly Muslim refugees from the eastern Bosnian enclave of Srebrenica wait for transportation on 12 July 1995. AP/Press Association Images
Genocide
Justice for those massacred in a 'safe area': what happened in Srebrenica?
Timeline in pictures and video: on the day Ratko Mladic is imprisoned for life, TheJournal.ie takes a look back at the events of July 1995 – the UN and Europe’s darkest hour.
This article was originally posted on 17 May 2012 when Ratko Mladic first appeared at the International Criminal Court in The Hague and reposted on 16 July 2014 after a court in the Netherlands ruled that the Dutch state was liable for over 300 deaths. The events at Srebrenica saw 8,000 men and boys perish in one of the worst atrocities ever seen in Europe. It is updated and posted today, 22 November 2017, as Mladic is sentenced to life in prison.
IT HAS BEEN 22 years since the horror of Srebrenica.
Almost unbelievably, funerals of 71 newly-identified victims of the July 1995 massacre were being held this summer. The coffins at the memorial centre were lined up beside burial pits, women who lost husbands, fathers, brothers, sons and grandfathers stood ready to say goodbye to their loved ones once more. The youngest 15. The oldest 72.
So far, about 6,000 victims of the massacre have been laid to rest but thousands remain unaccounted for. Over an 11-day period, up to 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered in a round of ethnic cleansing led by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS).
The worst massacre in Europe since World War II had happened in the United Nation’s first-ever ‘safe area’.
Today – as survivors and the bereaved see justice - TheJournal.ie has taken a look at the events which led to the fall of Srebrenica and its bloody aftermath:
1992-1993
Srebrenica is a town in eastern Bosnia, about 10 miles from the Serbian border. During the conflict, which began in 1992, it was an enclave under the control of the Bosnian Army and housed thousands of Bosnian Muslims from surrounding areas. Operating from Srebrenica, Bosnian forces attack surrounding Serb villages in the early days of the war. However, over the four years, Bosnian Serbs besieged the area and frequently shelled it.
‘A’ marks Srebrenica.
In January 1993, Naser Oric – the guerilla commander of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina – had doubled Muslim territory in east Bosnia and attacked the Serb-controlled village of Kravica, allegedly committing a number of atrocities against the local population. He was later tried by the ICT but acquitted of all charges.
By March, the Bosnian Serb Army had regrouped and backed with weapons and other resources from Serbia were able to surround the town. Up to 60,000 people had now arrived in Srebrenica for safekeeping.
On 12 March 1993, French General Philippe Morillon (pictured) who was the UN Commander in Bosnia got through the Serb front line and declared the town “under the protection of the UN”. He found an overcrowded, slum-like scenario as the town had little running water, shabby electricity supplies and a scarcity of supplies. He told the residents that they would not be abandoned by the world.
Morillon reassures residents and refugees. (Image: Haris Nezirovic/AP/Press Association Images)
Although the Bosnian government and commanders opposed the move (they believed it was wrong that they had to move their people from their country), over the next month, about 5,000 people were evacuated under the auspices of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Evacuees form Srebrenica look out from a UN truck in Medgas, north of Sarajevo on 20 March 1993. (Image: Michel Euler/AP/Press Association Images)
But the effort to evacuate a large number of the 40,000-to-60,000 Muslim townspeople and refugees crowded into the Srebrenica enclave has turned into one of the most bitter disputes in a year of United Nations operations here. Leaders of the Bosnian Government in Sarajevo have accused the United Nations of reneging on pledges to save Srebrenica from the attacks and of assisting instead in a Serbian policy of “ethnic cleansing”.
Just over one month later, on 16 April 1993, the town was declared a “safe area” by the UN amid fears that the Serbs would besiege it. The declaration meant the town (and a 30sq-mile radius) was demilitarised by 8 May. A BBC report from that day shows that the details of the UN Security Council plan were “unclear” about how the safe haven would be defended.
Both parties to the conflict signed up to the “safe area” agreement but the Serb army consistently refused to decommission weapons around Srebrenica.
On 25 April 1993, UN special envoy to Srebrenica Diego Arria said:
If we don’t watch out, this could become a slow-motion genocide.
1994
On 19 December 1994, former US President Jimmy Carter (centre), Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic (left) and Bosnian Serb army commander Ratko Mladic (right) signed a declaration proposing a four-month ceasefire. Still, there was no sign of any decommissioning by Serbs in Srebrenica. (Image: Sava Radovanovic/AP/Press Association Images)
1995
As the situation in Srebrenica deteriorated even further at the beginning of 1995, about 400 Dutch troops were deployed as peacekeepers to Bosnia. The first battalion of Blue Helmets arrived at their base at Potocari. The Dutchbat, as they were known, were only lightly armed.
In May of the same year, Oric was taken out of the enclave by his leaders, leaving an ill-equipped defence. Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation worsened dramatically. People began to die of starvation as the aid corridor remained closed and few supply convoys got through.
In a letter dated 26 January 1993 (see full version here), the Srebrenica Municipality said that 648 men, women and children had either died from starvation or disease.
As both the military and humanitarian situations deteriorated, NATO, the UN and Sarajevo remained indecisive about air strikes and possible actions to increase the defence capabilities of the Dutch soldiers in the area.
Between 6 and 10 July 1995, the VSR saw an opportunity to begin an offensive as international powers dithered. Bosnian Serb forces laid siege to the so-called safe area where tens of thousands of Muslims were seeking refuge under the supposed protection of the UN. The Serbs did not care about any UN pact, however, and were impatient to move.
At this stage, there were about 600 lightly-armed Dutch forces who refused to return weapons to the Muslim fighters. As Serbian troops advanced, Dutch soldiers put up little resistance (they were there as peacekeepers) but asked for support with Dutch Commander Colonel Ton Karremans believing NATO airstrikes would begin immediately.
On 9 July, 30 Dutch soldiers were taken hostage and residents began to flee to camps south of Srebrenica. Most went to Potocari. One peacekeeper was killed when Bosnian Muslims fired on retreating Dutch troops.
Tensions rose drastically on 10 July with Dutch troops firing warning shots over the Serbs’ heads. Chaos ensued as Bosnian Muslims panicked and troops were under-resourced to deal with the situation.
Airstrikes were requested but never came and all five UNPROFOR (UN protection force) observation posts fell within days. Later it transpired that the request for airstrikes submitted by Karremans on 10 July after Mladic refused to retreat was written on an incorrect form.
When the correct form was finally submitted on the morning of 11 July, the planes had already returned to Italy to refuel. As the Dutch were seen to have reneged on their promise of strikes, about 20,000 refugees – in complete panic – fled to the main base at Potocari. Only about 5,000 were granted entry by the soldiers.
Two Dutch F-16 fighters dropped two bombs on Serb positions later that day but they were met with threats that the hostages would be killed. Further strikes were suspended as a result.
Advertisement
Eventually, Mladic entered Srebrenica to hold a meeting with Karremans. A deal was made to allow for the release of Dutch hostages. During the messy negotiations, those 5,000 Muslim refugees who had been given entry to Potocari were promised to the Bosnian Serbs. The Dutch say they were assured of the Bosniaks’ safety once their weapons were handed over.
Karremans was photographed toasting his deal with Mladic on 11 July. (Image: Anonymous/AP/Press Association Images)
Later that day, Mladic’s triumphant walk through the town was captured by Serbian cameramen. He is seen here being congratulated by his men and barking orders to take down flags and signage belonging to the Bosnian Muslims. He is also heard directing his men to go straight to Potocari. Meanwhile, several thousand refugees awaited their tragic fate in that town.
On 12 July 1995, the segregation of the Muslim population of the area began. Women and children were bussed out to other Muslim territories while men and teenage boys were kept for “interrogation for suspected war crimes”.
Summary executions of men began and houses were set on fire at random by Serbian troops, according to witnesses. Others who tried to escape through the mountains were shelled as they fled.
About 23,000 women and children were deported over the next 30 hours. Most never saw their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons again. Witnesses also reported beatings and multiple rapes of those who were expelled.
This 13 July 1995 file photo shows Dutch UN peacekeepers sitting on top of an APC as Muslim refugees from Srebrenica, eastern Bosnia, gather in the village of Potocari.
Peacekeepers handed over the 5,000 promised Muslims who had been sheltering at Potocari to Mladic’s troops on 13 July. In return, 14 Dutch hostages were released.
Over the next eight days, executions of up to 8,000 Muslim men and boys took place in schools, warehouses and other locations. Their bodies were placed in mass graves.
In the next two decades, graves containing hundreds of bodies continue to be found across Bosnia.
#
This 5 July 1996 file photo shows a Finnish forensic expert places a number next to the skull of a Srebrenica victim found in the hills above the village of Kravice, some 15 kms north west of Srebrenica. (Image: Staton R. Winter/AP/Press Association Images)
Another mass grave at Pilica. (Image: Staton R. Winter/AP/Press Association Images)
In the days that followed, there were very few stories of reunions of families. However, this rare one of a father and husband arriving safely to the UN air base at Tuzla after surviving the death march of six days from Srebrenica shows him being welcomed by his daughters and wife.
(Image: MICHEL EULER/AP/Press Association Images)
The aftermath
The Red Cross compiled lists of victims and missing persons for years after the genocide. In 2005, the group said that 5,500 people remain unaccounted for following the events in Srebrenica. A staggering list of all persons unaccounted for in Bosnia after the 1990s conflict can be found here. It is still updated regularly.
A banner held up in London in July 1998 shows the 7,300 names that the Red Cross had confirmed as victims of the massacre by that date. (Image: Ben Curtis/PA Archive/Press Association Images)
In 2011, years after the tragedy had occurred, a mass reburial of 613 victims took place with 40,000 mourners looking on. It had a special resonance after the capture of Mladic in May.
(Image: Amel Emric/AP/Press Association Images)
On 5 July 2011, the Hague court found that the Dutch State was responsible for the deaths of three Bosnian Muslims in the massacre. The unexpected ruling paved the way for compensation claims by families against the Netherlands for not protecting the designated safe area. The judges in the case said that the Dutch troops should not have handed over the men to Bosnian Serb forces as Mladic overran the town.
The court ruled that the Dutch state is responsible for the death of these men because Dutchbat should not have handed them over.
The court said that even though Dutchbat was working under the UN after the fall of Srebrenica, in a situation which they called "extraordinary", the Dutch government became more involved with Dutchbat and the evacuation, and in that sense they were responsible.
In April 2014, the Dutch government said it would pay €20,000 to relatives of three Bosnian Muslim men murdered after peacekeepers expelled them from the UN compound at Srebrenica in 1995.
In July 2014, the court said:
"The state is liable for the loss suffered by relatives of the men who were deported by the Bosnian Serbs from the Dutchbat (Dutch battalion) compound in Potocari in the afternoon of 13 July 1995.
Dutchbat should have taken into account the possibility that these men would be the victim of genocide and that it can be said with sufficient certainty that, had the Dutchbat allowed them to stay at the compound, these men would have remained alive.
“By cooperating in the deportation of these men, Dutchbat acted unlawfully."
Back in 1995, Mladic fled into hiding after the war and spent 15 years as a fugitive before international pressure on Serbia led to his arrest in 2011. He is adamant that he has not committed any war crimes, including genocide, of which he is now convicted, His actions were carried out to defend his country, he says. Now 74 years old, an angry outburst during his appearance at the ICTY today showed the same commander who was given the name the Butcher of Bosnia two decades ago.
In this September 1995 photo, Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladic plays pool during the pause in talks with U.N. commander Bernard Janvier in the town of Mali Zvornik. (Image: Sava Radovanovic/AP/Press Association Images)
Srebrenica, Bosnian Muslim men carry coffins of their relatives during the funeral mass at the Potocari Memorial Centre. (Image: Sulejman Omerbasic/AP/Press Association Images)
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
The science shows little or no connection between red meat consumption and cancer. Processed meat does carry a relatively tiny risk. I think the key issue is a balanced diet and exercise. Modern humans in industrialised societies tend to be poor at both of these. In addition most humans in industrialised societies suffer from a sleep deficit and the science shows that this is very damaging for health. Reducing good health or saving the environment to issues like how much red meat one consumes is an exercise in stupidity and virtue signalling at its worst.
@John R: what science are you referring to John? There is indeed actual research that shows a direct link to reoccurring cancer cells that appear after therapy and animal proteins. Dr John Kelly wrote about it in his book, Stop Feeding your Cancer. A good read.
@John R: I’m betting your a farmer or connected to the meat or food production business. It is in black and white scientific evidence to prove your comment as bull S h 1 t
@John R: Read the article. The above article states that there is a minor link with cancer and processed foods but that the causality is not proven. There is no proven causality with red meat consumption and there is no science demonstrating that there is. None. Originally red meat was heavily linked to cholesterol and everyone was encouraged to go low fat. We were also told to stop eating butter. Fat was bad. It was junk science and the focus on low fat led to a massive rise in obesity and an over focus on carbohydrates including simple carbohydrates.
If people think that cutting down red meat consumption is going to reduce cancer and save the planet then off you go. The point I was making was about the need for a balanced diet combined with exercise. Fadism won’t achieve this.
@John Mc Donagh: Obviously didn’t read the article with all the farmers and culchy td’s using the term “vegan” as an insult. “militant veggies” give me a break
@Gerry Hannan: You’d never think that there used to be enormous herds of animals roaming the earth not too long ago. Bison are one species that spring to mind. And yet the earth thrived. I wonder why people tend to believe so easily that getting rid of large animals is one of the solutions to climate change? Methane, while a potent greenhouse gas, last about 12 years in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide lasts for thousands of years. Large roaming ruminant animals have evolved over a long period of time. They have a function in the ecosystem and their activities are important.
@John R: what utter nonesence are you talking. Very different a herd of wild animals and intensive farming. Back to the IFA and protest for more grants with you.
@John R: a far bigger issue than cow farts is the carbon footprint on production of feed for animals. Granted it’s not as bad in Ireland as elsewhere due to grass fed beef. But the amount of feed required to feed cattle would feed 7 times as many people.
Plus eating too much red meat is not good for the digestive system.
My lack of respect for and loathing of Varadakar as a politician knows no bounds but even I disagree with this scrutiny of his diet and the demonization of the man for cutting back on meat.
His diet is entirely his business, he’s not claiming that a vegetarian diet cures cancer.
This article whilsy it does have accurate information comes across as ensationalist nonsense due to some bizzare sweeping statements: consumption of red meat in particular processed meat *does* increase one’s relative risk of cancer. The overall risk is still quite low and other lifestyle factors contribute more but it’s not untrue that reducing red meat intake could theoretically reduce risk.
Furthermore the claim that people believe if they don’t eat meat “they won’t get cancer” is such a ridiculous statement that I can’t believe someone was actually quoted saying that (I refuse to believe “most people” or even “many people” believe that)
A healthy, balanced diet be it vegan, vegetarian or omnivorous is going to have benefits and the idea that humans need huge amounts of meat is a myth, the average person (ie not an Olympic athlete) needs about 20-40g of animal protein to fulfill their daily dietary requirements- so about half a skinless chicken breast- despite what people seem to claim homo sapiens evolved on a hunter gatherer diet which was primarily plants, fruit, berries, nuts and comparably small amounts of meat -we’re not big cats-
Also on a final note rabbit is a horrific alternative, look up “protein poisoning” for anyone interested, in general it requires more vitamins to consume rabbit than one will get from it to the point that US military guidelines recommend abstaining from eating altogether if rabbit is the only available food source.
@SJF: If his diet is his business then he shouldn’t have stood in the dàil and pontificate on public record about his diet. He shouldn’t have participated in a prime slot TV programme about loosing weight. His is a walking ego, and if he was an ice cream he’d like himself.
You don’t address the climate change aspect of beef production anywhere in this article. Varadkar first made that comment when asked what he’s doing to combat climate change. The comment about his dual reasons for eating less meat (health + climate change) came later. Beef production is a huge factor affecting the environment but most studies reference US beef farming methods (cattle are fed with water-intensive alfalfa). I’d be interested to see an article on the environmental impact of Irish beef production; things like grass- vs. grain-fed cattle, the environmental benefits of purchasing locally produced meat, whether the impact would be less if we ate less meat but chose organic/grass-fed. To me, the Taoiseach’s comment about health was secondary and you’re missing the point here.
You don’t need Science to prove that eating Meat and Dairy is certainly bad for the animals. There is no nutrition that we can’t get from better plant sources. So why hurt them when you don’t have too?
Moving to a plant based diet is of great importance for many health benefits… unfortunately there is misinformation regarding what is good and what is bad… Meat companies and farming have a massive lobby influencing government polices permeating all levels of society… from television adds, programs! Then education… similar to fossil fuels and drug companies its massive multi billion euro enterprise… that does not take kindly to any evidence that is contrary to their propoganda machine… But if one researches into the area properly you will find many people have healed their bodies through plant based diet… i.e. juicing, fresh fruits, herbal medicine that is natural, chemical free and inline with our biology..
Most of these people who refuse to eat red meat for environmental reasons think nothing of boarding a Boeing 777 to fly to some far off place on their holidays every year, these planes when fully fueled carry about 48,000 US gallons of fuel enough to fuel at least 100 family cars for a year yet they fail to see the irony in this. Time to get their priorities right I think.
@Sal Paradise:
Its not a question of all or nothing but let’s get our priorities right here, cattle have been around and man has eaten red meat for thousands of years without having to worry about climate change, why all of a sudden have they become the problem ?
Today when a politician makes a comment such as the the one Varadkar made, he should expect it to be decisive. Even if he said he doesn’t want to eat broccoli because he disliked it, he can expect a a backlash.
Suppose he suggested all of Ireland should go on a diet of potatoes only?
If we all go vegan, we’ll be swapping intensive beef and dairy production for intensive tillage farming. People will then be complaining about all the emissions from farm machinery.
This article has too much emphasis on the individual health benefits of eating less red meat, when the climate change aspect is by far the most important bit.
Cattle farming is one of the biggest contributers to climate change, as cows fart methane gas thats known to be 5 times as bad a pollutant as Co2. Were also producing cattle at anexponential rate, with America now consuming the same amount of meat in a single day, than it did in an entire year, 100 years ago.
All the while, cattle farm land takes up a serious amount of space (were running out of it) causing us to cut down more forests to make room for it when we desperately need more trees and forestry.
And even more still, the amount of water it takes to grow a cow from calf to butchers is massive.
What is with all these extreme comments?? Obviously cutting back on red meat is likely good for you, same as everything in moderation is better than copious amounts of any one source of protein. I would hate to be vegan but I would equally not want to have sausages, steak or burgers on a daily basis. Wouldn’t have thought I’m unusual!
So is there a possibilty to see warning messages on the meat bags like we see on the cigarettes?
It’s unhealthy maybe but any industry defends the profit it makes.
US and Russian officials begin talks in Saudi Arabia on resetting relations and Ukraine war
3 hrs ago
7.4k
91
Catholic Church
Vatican cancels Pope Francis's weekend events as he continues to receive hospital treatment
47 mins ago
678
3
DWTS
Viewers call for change in Dancing with the Stars voting format after Kevin Dundon remains on show
17 hrs ago
67.6k
33
Your Cookies. Your Choice.
Cookies help provide our news service while also enabling the advertising needed to fund this work.
We categorise cookies as Necessary, Performance (used to analyse the site performance) and Targeting (used to target advertising which helps us keep this service free).
We and our 148 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device. Selecting Accept All enables tracking technologies to support the purposes shown under we and our partners process data to provide. If trackers are disabled, some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you. You can resurface this menu to change your choices or withdraw consent at any time by clicking the Cookie Preferences link on the bottom of the webpage .Your choices will have effect within our Website. For more details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
We and our vendors process data for the following purposes:
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
Cookies Preference Centre
We process your data to deliver content or advertisements and measure the delivery of such content or advertisements to extract insights about our website. We share this information with our partners on the basis of consent. You may exercise your right to consent, based on a specific purpose below or at a partner level in the link under each purpose. Some vendors may process your data based on their legitimate interests, which does not require your consent. You cannot object to tracking technologies placed to ensure security, prevent fraud, fix errors, or deliver and present advertising and content, and precise geolocation data and active scanning of device characteristics for identification may be used to support this purpose. This exception does not apply to targeted advertising. These choices will be signaled to our vendors participating in the Transparency and Consent Framework.
Manage Consent Preferences
Necessary Cookies
Always Active
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
Targeting Cookies
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
Functional Cookies
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
Performance Cookies
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Store and/or access information on a device 102 partners can use this purpose
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development 133 partners can use this purpose
Use limited data to select advertising 103 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Create profiles for personalised advertising 75 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Use profiles to select personalised advertising 74 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Create profiles to personalise content 36 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Use profiles to select personalised content 32 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Measure advertising performance 124 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Measure content performance 59 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources 72 partners can use this purpose
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Develop and improve services 79 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Use limited data to select content 37 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
Use precise geolocation data 42 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification 24 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Ensure security, prevent and detect fraud, and fix errors 82 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Deliver and present advertising and content 92 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Match and combine data from other data sources 65 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Link different devices 48 partners can use this feature
Always Active
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Identify devices based on information transmitted automatically 81 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
Save and communicate privacy choices 60 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say