Posted on

by

in

Controversy Arises as Stockholm Court Segregates Damages from Lundin Oil Trial

In a landmark trial gripping the attention of Sweden, two former executives from a prominent Swedish oil company, Lundin Oil, face charges of aiding and abetting war crimes in the Stockholm District Court. However, a recent decision by the court has sparked controversy and added complexity to the pursuit of justice for the victims.

The trial, marking the largest in Swedish history, involves Ian Lundin and Alexandre Schneiter, accused of complicity in war crimes during operations in what is now South Sudan. This unprecedented trial signifies the first instance in European legal history where multinational company leaders face charges of this magnitude relating to their business practices.

The repercussions of the court’s recent decision are profound. Last week, the Stockholm District Court ruled against allowing the plaintiffs in the Lundin Oil trial to present their damage claims within the criminal trial. This decision effectively erects significant barriers for the victims seeking redress, creating nearly insurmountable obstacles in their pursuit of justice.

Ebony Wade, a Legal Adviser at Civil Rights Defenders, emphasized the considerable challenges the decision poses for those affected by the alleged war crimes. “Separating the plaintiffs’ claims for damages makes it considerably more difficult for those affected by these alleged war crimes to obtain redress,” Wade stated. She expressed concerns that the South Sudanese plaintiffs now risk shouldering Ian Lundin and Alexandre Schneiter’s potentially substantial legal costs.

The backdrop to this case is distressing. Reports indicate that around 12,000 individuals lost their lives, and approximately 160,000 were displaced due to attacks by Sudanese military forces and allied militias purportedly safeguarding Lundin Oil’s operations.

Despite an exhaustive 10-year investigation involving over 270 interviews and 150 individuals, with an investigative report spanning 80,000 pages, the recent decision has dealt a severe blow to the victims’ prospects. Out of the 32 plaintiffs, the court’s ruling excludes 27 from pursuing their damage claims within the criminal trial, compelling them to initiate separate civil cases.

This separation of the damages issue forces victims into 27 distinct civil trials. An adverse ruling in these cases could leave the plaintiffs liable for Ian Lundin and Alexandre Schneiter’s legal expenses. Adding to the complexity, these victims now face a new requirement: a substantial security deposit of an estimated half a million Swedish kronor per case to cover the anticipated legal costs of the District Court and the Court of Appeal.

As the trial unfolds in Sweden, the decision’s ramifications cast a shadow over the pursuit of justice for the victims of alleged war crimes, raising concerns about the inherent barriers faced by individuals seeking accountability from powerful corporate entities.

As Rights Defenders, we vehemently oppose the systemic barriers that hinder victims of alleged war crimes, striving tirelessly to combat such injustices and amplify the voices of those affected, ensuring their access to fair trials and seeking redress for the grave violations outlined in the Lundin Oil trial.