In convicting Liberian President Charles Taylor of crimes against humanity the Special Court for Sierra Leone the court found Taylor complicit in a campaign of terror mounted by the RUF. In addition, to mass killings, torture and rape, this campaign of terror included war crimes and crimes against humanity of an economic nature, such as enslavement and pillage.

Much of the evidence against Taylor was made up of the extensive support he provided to the RUF, everything from arms, to tactical and strategic advice (e.g., what towns to take first, what diamond fields to control), to transport, communications, food, clothing, as well as financial assistance and the facilitation of diamond deals.

The Trial Chamber found that the support Taylor provided was extensive, and that Taylor and the RUF shared a common interest. However, the Trial Chamber argued that the evidence did not show that Taylor controlled the RUF as a commander might, nor that he had entered into a common plan with the RUF:

“the relationship was a mutually beneficial one, the Trial Chamber is of the view that it was the expression of converging and synergistic interests, rather than a ‘common plan to terrorize the civilian population of Sierra Leone’. As these interests evolved, the relationship evolved accordingly.” (Taylor, SCSL, para. 6895).

On the basis of Taylor’s assistance, he was convicted of aiding and abetting the crimes of the RUF. The Trial Chamber found a relationship involving a mutual interest - including economic interest - could give rise to liability for an accomplice and did not require a common plan or control over the perpetrators.

A conviction of a political-military leader using theories of responsibility such as 'aiding and abetting' sets an important marker for the potential liability, especially in commercial relationships, which are often constructed to ensure plausible deniability. The Trial Chamber’s use of aiding and abetting suggests the extent of responsibility can be inferred from the nature of the interests at work at a particular moment in time. For example, the court accepted that the arms-for-diamond trade between the RUF and Taylor involved

“a quid pro quo in the relations between the RUF and the Accused. The trading of diamonds for arms is the clearest example of this quid pro quo, and a number of statements attributed to the Accused indicate the interest he had in providing weapons or facilitating the provision of weapons to the RUF in exchange for diamonds. In the Trial Chamber’s view, this evidence clearly shows that the Accused and the RUF were military allies and trading partners. . .” (Taylor, para. 6898)

Allies and trading partners of the perpetrators of atrocity crimes need not be part of a common criminal plan, nor in a relationship of subordinates and superiors, in order to be found liable for the acts of their partners.

Sources

Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor (Trial Chamber II, Special Court for Sierra Leone, 18 May 2012)

At the time of the Rwandan genocide, Félicien Kabuga was a prominant businessman. He was subsequently charged with helping to organise and incite attacks against Tutsi as part of the genocide. He went into hiding abroad and was a fugitive for 26 years until he was arrested by French authorities in 2021.

According to the charges, from 1992, Kabuga – through his company ETS – purchased large stocks of machetes and other weapons and uniforms. He also provided transport in his company-owned vehicles. The charges state that he provided this support to the Interahamwe militia in the belief that this material assistance would be used during the massacres.

In addition, it was alleged that Kabuga and others created the National Defence Fund in order to buy weapons, vehicles and uniforms for the Interahamwe and the army and that Kabuga was appointed as President of the National Defence Fund’s Acting Committee. It was alleged that he had signatory power over the fund’s bank accounts and that he informed the Interim Government about the existence of this fund and counseled the government on how to manage and to use it.

In addition, Kabuga was charged in connection with his founding of the radio station RTLM, which he allegedly operated with others in a manner that directly and publicly incited the commission of genocide and persecution of Tutsi through denigrating and threatening broadcasts. These broadcasts expressly identified persons as Tutsi or as “accomplices” or “allies” of the Rwandan Patriotic Front and, in some instances, provided locations and other information that encouraged or facilitated their killing.

The indictment alleges that Kabuga is liable for these crimes based on his participation in a joint criminal enterprise with others, as well as aiding and abetting the criminal conduct of RTLM journalists, Interahamwe miltia, and others whose crimes were assisted or instigated by RTLM broadcasts. Kabuga was further charged with aiding and abetting the Interahamwe militia who killed and harmed Tutsi and others in Kigali-Ville, Gisenyi, and Kibuye prefectures by having provided material, logistical, financial, and moral support to them. As an example, the Indictment alleges that Kabuga supported a core group of Interahamwe in Kimironko, Kigali, known as “Kabuga’s Interahamwe” in numerous ways and that this group participated in attacks, killing and harming Tutsi and others in Kigali-Ville prefecture at roadblocks, places of refuge, and houses.

Kabuga’s trial began at the International Residual Mechanism for the Criminal Tribunals in 2022, where he was charged with genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, and persecution on political grounds, extermination, and murder as crimes against humanity, committed in Rwanda in 1994.

In 2023, Kabuga was deemed unfit to stand trial.

Sources:

Case Information Sheet, Felicien Kabuga, International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals

Felicien Kabug, Ammended Indictment, 1 October 2023

In 2021, two former executives of Swedish oil company Lundin were indicted for aiding and abetting war crimes committed by the government of Sudan during the civil war in the south of the country. The criminal trial of Chairman Ian Lundin and CEO Alexandre Schneiter started in September 2023 and is scheduled to end in 2026.

The Swedish investigation was triggered in 2010 by a report prepared by the Dutch civil society organisation PAX, which documented a link between oil exploration and increasing violence in the war-torn south. The report and subsequent documentation established that between 1997 and 2003, crimes were committed including killings, rape, child abduction, torture, pillage, arson, destruction of schools, markets and clinics were destroyed. An estimated 12,000 people died and 180,000 were forcibly displaced.

At trial, prosecutors have alleged that the defendants provided logistical support to the government of Sudan forces, such as roads and landing strips, and that they closely coordinated security operations to ensure access to oil exploration areas.

Sources:

Trial Reports - the Lundin Case, Civil Rights Defenders

Lundin War Crimes Trial Podcast

Unpaid Debt, PAX, case summaries and resources

Sudan, Oil, and Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, 2003

In 2020, French authorities launched an investigation into BNP Paris in connection with its alleged role in providing financial services to the government of Sudan. The investigation was launched in response to a complaint filed by victims of crimes committed by the government of Sudan between 2002 - 2008. In 2024, the investigation was reported to to be ongoing (AFP).

BNP Paribas has declined to comment on the ongoing investigations.

In a 2014 plea deal with US authorities BNP Paribas plead guilty to charges it violated US sanctions by providing financial services to Sudan, Cuba and Iran. Charges in the sanctions case included that BNPP used a system of proxy banks “to process approximately $6.4 billion on behalf of Sudanese sanctioned entities”. As part of the plea deal BNP Paribas admitted the bank had acted for the Sudanese government during the period 2002-2008. BNP Paribas was required to pay a USD $8.9 billion penalty.

In 2024, a US judge ordered a separate law suit to proceed.

The criminal complaint filed in France by victims, with the support of FIDH, alleged that “by providing the Sudanese government with credit facilities, allowing the government to export petrol and access foreign money markets…the bank facilitated the commission of human rights violations amounting to international crimes by the Sudanese government.”(FIDH)

The crime base upon which the complain is based consists of allegations that “the government – through its military and security forces and Janjaweed militias – committed widespread human rights violations amounting to international crimes (including torture, crimes against humanity and genocide) against Sudanese civilians…tens of thousands of Sudanese activists and ordinary civilians were killed, forcibly displaced from their homes, detained, tortured and subjected to inhumane treatment or raped and subjected to other forms of sexual violence.” (FIDH)

Sources

BNP Paribas Agrees to Plead Guilty and to Pay $8.9 Billion for Illegally Processing Financial Transactions for Countries Subject to U.S. Economic Sanctions, US Department of Justice, 30 June 2014

Judicial Investigation Opened into BNP Paribas’ Role in Atrocities in Sudan, FIDH, 11 October 2020

“9 victimes soudanaises portent plainte contre BNP Paribas pour complicité de crimes contre l’humanité”, FIDH 26 September 2019