Search results

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed.

In this phase of the proceedings, the defendants requested the Court to dismiss the case, most importantly because they argued that the plaintiffs, being non-residents, could not sue in a US Court. The Court agreed with the defendants, stating that no exception should be made in this case to the general rule that non-residents cannot sue in a US court.    

In 2001 the Presbyterian Church of Sudan filed a lawsuit against the Canadian oil and gas producer, Talisman Energy, under the US Alien Tort Claims Act, which provides US courts with original jurisdiction over certain tort claims filed by aliens. In the suit, it was claimed that Talisman aided the Government of Sudan in the commission of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. According to the claim, Talisman worked alongside the Sudanese Government in the creation of buffer zones around certain oil fields, which effectively assisted human rights violations and the perpetration of international crimes in order to gain access to oil by displacing the population living in the areas around the oil fields and attacking their villages.

The District Court of New York dismissed the claim on 12 September 2006. On 3 October 2009, the decision was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The Court of Appeals held that, due to previous case law, it had to look at international law to decide what standard was applicable to establishing aiding and abetting liability for human rights violations. Turning to international law, the Court held that purposefully intending the violations, rather than knowledge of the violations alone, was the applicable standard. So, in order to determine liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act the plaintiffs must show that “Talisman acted with the “purpose” to advance the Government’s human rights abuses.” The Court held that the claimants had failed to establish that Talisman “acted with the purpose to support the Government’s offences”.

In this second-instance verdict, the Appellate Division upheld the first-instance verdict and found the accused Mladen Blagojević guilty of crimes against humanity. The Division sentenced him to seven years of  imprisonment. The other three accused, Zdravko Božić, Zoran Živanović and Željko Zarić, were acquitted.

In the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, Milorad Trbic was a deputy chief of the Zvornik Brigade of the Army of the Republika Srpska. He participated in the genocide of Bosniak men in Srebrenica in July 1995 by. He did this by, among other things, firing automatic rifles at them during executions, and supervising and coordinating the detention and execution of Bosniak men at various sites in the area around the city of Zvornik.

Milorad Trbic was first indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). On 27 April 2007, the case was referred the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for further processing, pursuant to Rule 11bis of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, taking into consideration the gravity of the crimes charged and the level of responsibility of the accused, and the standard of procedure in the country to where the case is referred. 

On 16 October 2009, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Trbic guilty of genocide committed in the Srebrenica area in July 1995, through his participation in a joint criminal enterprise (JCE). For criminal responsibility to arise via participation in a JCE there had to be a consistent and core group of actors with a common plan or purpose to commit a crime, with the accused to both intend and participate in the commission of that crime. The Court held that this was the case with Milorad Trbic. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison.