Red Flags Home



Expelling people


Forcing people to work

Handling questionable assets

Making illicit payments


Abusive security forces

Violating international sanctions

Providing the means to kill

Use of company assets

Financing international crimes



Additional Red Flags?








Why Red Flags?


The Cases

FAQ about business and international crimes


Contact and Contributions

Red Flags Home



In the interests of accuracy, the summaries of cases referred to under each Red Flag are based wherever possible on the available court documents or other public legal sources.


The contents and documents of this web site are intended for learning purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or opinion. www.redflags.info is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.




Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence
8. Allowing use of company assets for abuses

Company facilities and equipment used in the commission of international crimes can create liability for the company, even if it did not authorise or intend such use of those assets.

If companies or individuals provide material assistance to principal perpetrators of international crimes, then the legal doctrine of complicity (aiding or abetting) as a mode of commission, may under certain circumstances implicate those providing material assistance as accessories to the crimes. The International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, art. 25 (3) (c) and (d) establishes the international standard for individual criminal responsibility as an accessory to international crimes. Domestic jurisdictions may apply different standards.

Due Diligence for the Use of Company Assets


Case 8.1 John Doe I, et. al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et. al

In 2001, eleven Indonesian villagers filed suit against ExxonMobil in US federal court alleging that the company was complicit in murder, torture, sexual abuse and kidnapping at the hands of Indonesian military, allegedly hired by Exxon Mobil to provide security for its natural gas facilities in Aceh.

At the time, Exxon Mobil ran the Arun natural gas facility and pipeline which it operated in Aceh. The plaintiffs allege that Exxon Mobil provided financial and logistical support to Indonesian military units which allegedly committed various crimes. The allegations include torture of the plaintiffs inside the Exxon Mobil compound, in facilities provided by the company for the use of its security forces. Plaintiffs’ claims date from 2001, which they allege was after Exxon Mobil had knowledge of human rights violations by its security forces, and yet had not taken action to remedy the situation.

Plaintiffs alleged that by knowingly providing logistical and other forms of support to the security forces, including the use of company compound and its facilities, the company was complicit in the following wrongful acts:

Murder: A number of the plaintiffs alleged that their husbands were murdered by security forces.

Torture: A number of the plaintiffs alleged they were beaten, burned, shocked with cattle prods, kicked, and subjected to other forms of cruelty.

Kidnapping: A number of the plaintiffs alleged they were forcibly removed by security forces and detained for lengthy periods against their will.

Violence Against Women: a female plaintiff alleged she was beaten and sexually assaulted by member of the security forces.

Torts alleged included: Wrongful death, battery, assault, arbitrary arrest and detention, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, conversion (destruction of property).

Status

In January of 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied ExxonMobil's appeal of the lower court's denial of its motion to dismiss. Additionally, the court of appeals denied ExxonMobil's petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the lower court to dismiss the claims against the company. These rulings followed on the March 2, 2006 decision by a US federal judge to deny a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, and ordered the parties to proceed toward discovery in this case. Previously, on October 14, 2005, a US federal judge had ruled that the plaintiffs’ case may proceed on District of Columbia state law claims (which include wrongful death, theft by coercion and assault and battery), but dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act.

Sources of this summary

John Doe I, et. al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et. al. (Case No.: 01CV01357 (D.D.C. 2001)) Business and International Crimes

The Business and Human Rights web site contains links to court documents and related statements from both sides in the suit.
DRC Victims File Suit in Montreal
Congolese citizens filed a class action today in a Montreal court against a Canadian company alleging the company played a role in the massacre of more than seventy people in DRC in 2004. The suit claims the company provided logistical assistance to the Congolese military units which then violated human rights and committed crimes.
(07-11-2010)
Read more...
Governments Must Remove Barriers to Corporate Accountability says new report
A report out this week from Fafo, Amnesty International, and the Norwegian Peacebuilding Centre identifies obstacles to judicial remedies for business involvement in human rights abuses and sets out a series of reforms. The report argues governments need to take urgent action.
Read more...
Mining Company Sued in UK Courts over alleged Police Torture in Peru
"A British mining corporation is facing a multimillion-pound claim for damages after protesters were detained and allegedly tortured at an opencast copper plant in northern Peru....When the protesters marched to the mine they found armed police waiting for them. They say the police were being directed by the mine's managers – although its owner, Monterrico Metals, disputes this." See article and video here:
(17-10-2009)
Read more...
Red Flags Launched in London 23 May
International Alert and the Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies launched the Red Flags guide and web site 23 May at a seminar in London.
(22-05-2008)
Read more...
Developed with QwikZite (version 1.12)